On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:57:31AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams <cmad...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>>> SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. >> No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as a name-based virtual >> host with any modern webserver / browser. (Server Name Indication >> (SNI) [RFC3546, sec 3.1]) > "I encourage my competitors to do this." You only have to get one > noisy curmudgeon who can't get to your customer's SSL website > because IE 5.0 has worked fine for them for years to make it a > completely losing strategy to try deploying this everywhere. Since > you can't predict in advance which sites are going to be accessed by > said noisy curmudgeon, you don't bother deploying it anywhere, to be > on the safe side. The switch to "HTTP requests include a hostname" had the same problem, but still did occur; it may take a few years, but doable. Probably too late to save IPv4 addresses; though. By then (I really, really, hope) IPv6 will be mainstream. -- Lionel