IP assignment for virtual webhosting

In a sales environment, it would certainly be easier to enforce namebased
virtual web-hosting if everyone had to play by the same rules. 

Currently being conciencous and telling a prospect they can't have the IP
addresses for virtual web hosting gets the response "well ISP xxx will
provide me with them".

The importance of enforcing name-based hosting is high, but I also get the
feeling the amount of wasted address space elsewhere on the Internet (/16s
allocated to big institutions years ago that are firewalled other than a
handful of /24s?) should be a higher priority - not saying that RIPE did
these allocations of course!

Toby

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no
> [mailto:Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no]
> Sent: 17 November 1999 17:10
> To: Sam.Bradford at demon.net
> Cc: cor at xs4all.net; nurani at ripe.net; lir-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
> 
> 
> > Although the amount of clients connecting with 1.0 may be very
> > little in most cases, it does still happen. We have customers
> > specifically state that they do not want to set up http 1.1
> > because at the end of the day, some people will not be able to
> > view their (and/or their clients') web sites, which is fair
> > enough.
> 
> I hope this doesn't mean they don't deply http 1.1-capable
> servers, but that they don't actually utilize the virtual hosting
> functionality based on the Host: header in http 1.1?
> 
> Not doing 1.1 server-side would be extremely bad for the http 1.1
> clients and the general health of the network.
> 
> By the way, anyone want to take bets about when the next craze about
> "always on" network service becomes significantly widespread, and
> how that will affect IP address space consumption? ;-) (No, I'm not
> an IPv6 advocate, if that's what you're thinking, just putting this
> all in some larger perspective.)
> 
> 
> - Håvard
>