On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Gregory Leblanc <headmaster.albus.dumbled...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tobias Mueller > <mue...@auftrags-killer.org> wrote: >> On 28.01.2011 13:03, Olav Vitters wrote: >>> It needs SSL, so dedicated IP address (sort of, >>> you can share it I heard, but that doesn't work on IE properly..). >> Didn't know we care about IE. But >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Browsers> lists IE >> 7 supporting SNI. Hence, we don't need a seperate IP address and can >> deploy HTTPS everywhere. > > I don't think you read that carefully enough. In particular, see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Client_side > IE 7 only supports SNI on Windows Vista and newer. IE on Windows XP > does not support SNI due to limitations of the TLS stack. > Greg
Why bother debating ssl so much? That is beside the point and is mostly OT for this thread. For stuff that needs ssl, we can just create subinterfaces (ie: eth0:0) if absolutely necessary and ip them with a separate ip. This isn't rocket surgery gentlemen. The only issue is us getting ip addresses to begin with and that is completely orthogonal to this discussion. -- Jeff Schroeder Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix. http://www.digitalprognosis.com _______________________________________________ gnome-infrastructure mailing list gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
