using SSL, you'll run into issues, because you need to have a separate
IP for each individual SSL certificate, but for non-SSL hosting, it's
great.
The argument against it is that clients which don't support HTTP1.1
will only ever get the default host on the IP address, becuase they
don't send a host header, but you'll be hard pressed to find such a
client anywhere.
cheers,
barneyb
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:59:52 -0400, Ray Champagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a sort of off-topic question for you guys concerning hosting
> set-ups. We have about 89 domains that we are currently hosting at XO
> communications for cheap cheap money. All of them are static sites - html
> only - we do our CF hosting elsewhere (I'll leave 'who' up to your
> imaginations to avoid 'my host is better than yours'
> conversations). Recently, XO decided that they are going to start charging
> us an arm and a leg for our hosting, yet still keep the same crappy
> customer service and questionable uptime. So, we have started to look
> elsewhere for hosting options. The cheapest option given to us from most
> hosting companies is using one IP address and having all sites reside under
> the one IP using IIS redirects (I guess, I'm not an IIS guy). We are used
> to having one IP per domain at XO...
>
> My boss is totally against going this route, but has no reason to do
> so. What I want to know is why would this matter? Search Engines, etc
> don't care what our IP address is, right? Are there any real reasons that
> we should have a separate IP for every account, even if we were to bundle
> all of our CF accounts into one host? The hosting companies are reputable
> large (not cheap or crappy service) companies, so those things are not an
> issue, we have already weeded out the dregs...
>
> Thanks for the insights!
>
> Ray
--
Barney Boisvert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
360.319.6145
http://www.barneyb.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
