May 2000 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 11 May '00

11 May '00

Yes, that exactly the way we do it. If I imagine the power needed to implement this its nearly impossible to reimpleent for ONLY name-based Virtual Hosts. And if you think of Bandwith management - i don't see any way to do this on an per name-basis, only per ip (and service) is possible as far as I know. To use Bandwidth mangement on named vhosts-basis, you would have to read out the FULL ip-header and service-specific headers on the router...i think this is not possible without enormous CPU-power and would give high delays on the router. ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Mark Lastdrager To: henning.brauer(a)bsmail.de <mark(a)pine.nl cc: Daniel Roesen <noc(a)entire-systems.com>, "lir-wg(a)ripe.net" <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting 11.05.00 13:22 At Thu, 11 May 2000, owner-lir-wg(a)ripe.net wrote: >there is one big problem i see: If you charge your customers for traffic, >you must count the traffic, and the easiest and most reliable way to do >this is on the firewall/router. Thats the way we do and therefore we need >one IP per customer. Most customers have more than one site and for that we >are using HTTP 1.1 (NameVirtualHosts). >As long as there is no Package for apache to count the traffic !reliable! >(the traffic counted via access logs is << real traffic ) I do not see a >way to put all customers to a couple of IPs. Same over here. We have built our own database-driven system over the last years which links IP adresses to customers, measures their traffic and even has the ability to traffic-shape groups of IP adresses to a certain bandwith, like a Packeteer box can do. Input comes from the border router which has IP accounting. Ofcourse when customers want more than one hostname linked to the same virthost (but with different content) we use a name-based virthost. Because of this system it is very hard to implement name-based virtual hosting, all accounting is done on one IP adress then and we have to rethink our accounting scheme of virthosts (which takes time, costs money etc. etc.) Mark Lastdrager Pine Internet -- email: mark(a)lastdrager.nl :: ML1400-RIPE :: tel. +31-70-3111010 http://www.pine.nl :: RIPE RegID nl.pine :: fax. +31-70-3111011 PGP key ID 92BB81D1 :: Dutch security news @ http://security.nl Today's excuse: Dew on the telephone lines.

4 3

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 11 May '00

11 May '00

thats our situation too. doing some changes in the scripts should do the things. ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Daniel Roesen <noc@entire-sy To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net stems.com> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting owner-lir-wg@r ipe.net 11.05.00 16:51 On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 04:37:08PM +0200, henning.brauer(a)bsmail.de wrote: > There was a solution for this on this list a few days ago... Sure, but you're screwed if you you auto-generate your zonefiles and VHost-configs from databases and you want to move many VHosts... Best regards, Daniel Roesen Entire Systems NOC -- Entire Systems Network Operations Center noc(a)entire-systems.com Entire Systems GmbH - Ferbachstrasse 12 - 56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen, Germany InterNIC-Handle: ES1238-ORG RIPE-Handle: ESN10-RIPE Tel: +49 2624 9550-55 GnuPG/PGP Key-ID: 0xBF3C40C9 http://www.entire-systems.com/noc/noc-key.asc GnuPG/PGP Fingerprint: 1F3F B675 1A38 D87C EB3C 6090 C6B9 DF48 BF3C 40C9

1 0

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 11 May '00

11 May '00

Hi Javier, why do you use an own POP3 and FTP for each customer/domain???? We are using the same POP3/FTP/SMTP for all customers. Of course you need individual Logins, you can solve this by naming them CUSTOMERNR-1, -2 and so on or by using DOMAINNAME-1, DOMAINNAME--2 and so on. For ftp, we do a CHROOT in the customers Webroot (=his home-dir). So where is the problem?? Henning Brauer Hostmaster BSWS ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE "Javier Llopis" To: "lir-wg(a)ripe.net" <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> <javier@bitma cc: iler.com> Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting Sent by: owner-lir-wg@ ripe.net 11.05.00 13:41 Please respond to "Javier Llopis" On Mon, 08 May 2000 18:26:19 +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: >We do however wish to raise our concern regarding what we see as an >inefficient usage of addresses in our limited address pool. We would >therefore like to request the community to consider making it >mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with >the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based >web-hosting (eg. SSL). There is one issue I'd like to bring up that we constantly run into and was never brought up in this debate, which somehow amazes me. Our typical situation is that when a customer orders a domain named web site it comes along with an FTP server and a POP-3 server so they can have their own email addresses. While we could host all customer pages on the same host with the same IP using HTTP 1.1, in order to do the same with the POP servers we need to distinguish the POP server by its single IP address, since there is no HTTP 1.1 equivalent for POP. So we end up with 99% of our domains having a different IP address each, in which case who _cares_ if we also use that IP address for the web server? Are we really wasting IP address space? Hasn't anybody run into this situation? If so, how are you dealing with it? We would ask that, unless a viable solution to this problem is found, name based hosting should be encouraged but not required. BTW we are adopting HTTP 1.1 name based virtual hosts anyway in case the FTP and POP issues could be solved. Regards Javier Llopis BitMailer, S.L. javier(a)bitmailer.com Juan Bravo 51, Dup. 1-Izq Tel: +34 91 402 1551 28006 Madrid Fax: +34 91 402 4115 SPAIN

3 3

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 11 May '00

11 May '00

I have written about accounting, but no one replied! once again: Hi all, there is one big problem i see: If you charge your customers for traffic, you must count the traffic, and the easiest and most reliable way to do this is on the firewall/router. Thats the way we do and therefore we need one IP per customer. Most customers have more than one site and for that we are using HTTP 1.1 (NameVirtualHosts). As long as there is no Package for apache to count the traffic !reliable! (the traffic counted via access logs is << real traffic ) I do not see a way to put all customers to a couple of IPs. Greetings from Germany Henning Brauer Hostmaster BSWS ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Daniel Roesen <noc@entire-sy To: "lir-wg(a)ripe.net" <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> stems.com> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting owner-lir-wg@r ipe.net 11.05.00 12:31 On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 11:41:58AM +0000, Javier Llopis wrote: > There is one issue I'd like to bring up that we constantly run into > and was never brought up in this debate, which somehow amazes me. And another one, not raised (enough): Accounting Best regards, Daniel -- Entire Systems Network Operations Center noc(a)entire-systems.com Entire Systems GmbH - Ferbachstrasse 12 - 56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen, Germany InterNIC-Handle: ES1238-ORG RIPE-Handle: ESN10-RIPE Tel: +49 2624 9550-55 GnuPG/PGP Key-ID: 0xBF3C40C9 http://www.entire-systems.com/noc/noc-key.asc GnuPG/PGP Fingerprint: 1F3F B675 1A38 D87C EB3C 6090 C6B9 DF48 BF3C 40C9

6 7

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Javier Llopis 11 May '00

11 May '00

On Thu, 11 May 2000 12:25:55 +0200 (CEST), Nils Jeppe wrote: >> Mmmm... A customer having two addresses in two different files/databases: >> That works but might be a nightmare to update. > >Nah, not really... it's still better than having to ervice/update/maintain >dozens of independent mail servers. But we DO have only one big POP server, the only thing is that it looks the IP address the client is connecting to to know which domain she belongs to. The alias approach is workable, but I foresee update inconsistencies created over time which can be a pain in the neck. But even then I'd have go to hundreds of organizations and thousands of users to tell them to reconfigure their email programs in a way that they won't understand (believe me). And I would have to tell them that in order to use the handy web-mail gateway they have to type an awkard user name, instead of 'my address is someuser(a)somecompany.es' I can put up with the update problem since that is an internal matter of my organization, but I don't want this kind of things to reflect outside nor I want customers to change their simple way of doing things if not for the better (for them, not for us or RIPE). Javier Llopis BitMailer, S.L. javier(a)bitmailer.com Juan Bravo 51, Dup. 1-Izq Tel: +34 91 402 1551 28006 Madrid Fax: +34 91 402 4115 SPAIN

1 0

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Mally Mclane 11 May '00

11 May '00

{and the bit I accidentally deleted) ...our major clients, (freeserve, lloydstsb, jungle.com etc) but not on vhosts. M > -----Original Message----- > From: Mally Mclane [mailto:mally@theplanet.net] > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:24 PM > To: 'Colin Johnston'; 'lir-wg(a)ripe.net' > Subject: RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting > > > We use FSLabs equipment across most of our major client > > regards, > > mally mclane > =>hostmaster/core systems > =>for the Planet Online, Leeds, UK > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Colin Johnston [mailto:colinj@uk.psi.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:48 PM > > To: henning.brauer(a)bsmail.de > > Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > > Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting > > > > > > > as far as I know. To use Bandwidth mangement on named > > vhosts-basis, you > > > would have to read out the FULL ip-header and > > service-specific headers on > > > the router...i think this is not possible without enormous > > CPU-power and > > > would give high delays on the router. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > This is possible using F5Labs equipment however I dont > belive this has > > been fully implemented on large web farms as yet but maybe soon :) > > > > Colin Johnston > > SA > > PSINET UK > > > > >

1 0

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Mally Mclane 11 May '00

11 May '00

We use FSLabs equipment across most of our major client regards, mally mclane =>hostmaster/core systems =>for the Planet Online, Leeds, UK > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Johnston [mailto:colinj@uk.psi.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:48 PM > To: henning.brauer(a)bsmail.de > Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting > > > > as far as I know. To use Bandwidth mangement on named > vhosts-basis, you > > would have to read out the FULL ip-header and > service-specific headers on > > the router...i think this is not possible without enormous > CPU-power and > > would give high delays on the router. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > This is possible using F5Labs equipment however I dont belive this has > been fully implemented on large web farms as yet but maybe soon :) > > Colin Johnston > SA > PSINET UK > >

1 0

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 11 May '00

11 May '00

Strato is not a good example... for a), you pointed out the important thing: It's inaccurate. If it would only be CPU-Power, you could use an own machine fopr that. forb), the main problem is to write such a software. Who of us has the time to do so? It would be very cool to have such a piece of software, but who can develop it? Or is there something that is capable to do so? Second problem, as you noticed, there could be a need to change your betwork layout. Our backbone is switched, and not every switch (in the Server-Racks we don't use the expensive Ciscos, there are simple Switches without Monitor-Port). So you would have to place the sniffer a) on the firewalls or the routers -> not a good idea - think of CPU, Diskspace, .. or b) but not always possible put in in the transfernet between firewalls and borderrouters. b) could be a olution for us if there were some kind of software usable for that. Greetings Henning Brauer Hostmaster BSWS ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Entire Systems NOC To: "lir-wg(a)ripe.net" <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> <noc@entire-sy cc: stems.com> Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting Sent by: owner-lir-wg@r ipe.net 11.05.00 13:30 On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 01:22:38PM +0200, Mark Lastdrager wrote: > Because of this system it is very hard to implement name-based virtual > hosting, all accounting is done on one IP adress then and we have to > rethink our accounting scheme of virthosts (which takes time, costs money > etc. etc.) Exactly. You basically have to either a) analyze webserver logs (very inaccurate, CPU-intensive) b) write your own accounting software basing on sniffing, analyzing packet payloads for HTTP 1.1 header information and tracing TCP streams. This can also lead to a restructuring of you networks to be able to sniff. AFAIK Strato (hosting >500.000 .de domains) does something like b) 'cause they can't afford spending CPU time on their hosting server to do any accounting... (but this is hearsay). Best regards, Daniel Roesen Entire Systems NOC -- Entire Systems Network Operations Center noc(a)entire-systems.com Entire Systems GmbH - Ferbachstrasse 12 - 56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen, Germany InterNIC-Handle: ES1238-ORG RIPE-Handle: ESN10-RIPE Tel: +49 2624 9550-55 GnuPG/PGP Key-ID: 0xBF3C40C9 http://www.entire-systems.com/noc/noc-key.asc GnuPG/PGP Fingerprint: 1F3F B675 1A38 D87C EB3C 6090 C6B9 DF48 BF3C 40C9

2 1

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Javier Llopis 11 May '00

11 May '00

On Mon, 08 May 2000 18:26:19 +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: >We do however wish to raise our concern regarding what we see as an >inefficient usage of addresses in our limited address pool. We would >therefore like to request the community to consider making it >mandatory for NEW installations to use domain based web-hosting, with >the exception of a set of agreed applications needing IP based >web-hosting (eg. SSL). There is one issue I'd like to bring up that we constantly run into and was never brought up in this debate, which somehow amazes me. Our typical situation is that when a customer orders a domain named web site it comes along with an FTP server and a POP-3 server so they can have their own email addresses. While we could host all customer pages on the same host with the same IP using HTTP 1.1, in order to do the same with the POP servers we need to distinguish the POP server by its single IP address, since there is no HTTP 1.1 equivalent for POP. So we end up with 99% of our domains having a different IP address each, in which case who _cares_ if we also use that IP address for the web server? Are we really wasting IP address space? Hasn't anybody run into this situation? If so, how are you dealing with it? We would ask that, unless a viable solution to this problem is found, name based hosting should be encouraged but not required. BTW we are adopting HTTP 1.1 name based virtual hosts anyway in case the FTP and POP issues could be solved. Regards Javier Llopis BitMailer, S.L. javier(a)bitmailer.com Juan Bravo 51, Dup. 1-Izq Tel: +34 91 402 1551 28006 Madrid Fax: +34 91 402 4115 SPAIN

6 6

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by henning.brauer＠bsmail.de 11 May '00

11 May '00

For me traffic management means to ensure that some really important sites always have enough bandwith and therefore first limiting bandwith for mail, ftp and so on.Second point is to make sure that even if there is a DoS-attack are something like this that uses all available bandwith that i can make sure to have a usabel SSH-Connection to the hosts (or in general: make sure that there is IN EVERY SITUATION enough bandwith for the netmanagement). ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info(a)bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Mark Lastdrager To: henning.brauer(a)bsmail.de <mark(a)pine.nl cc: > Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting 11.05.00 13:41 At Thu, 11 May 2000, henning.brauer(a)bsmail.de wrote: >Yes, that exactly the way we do it. If I imagine the power needed to >implement this its nearly impossible to reimpleent for ONLY name-based >Virtual Hosts. And if you think of Bandwith management - i don't see any >way to do this on an per name-basis, only per ip (and service) is possible >as far as I know. To use Bandwidth mangement on named vhosts-basis, you >would have to read out the FULL ip-header and service-specific headers on >the router...i think this is not possible without enormous CPU-power and >would give high delays on the router. There is something called 'mod_throttle' (if a remember well) for Apache, but I don't think customers are very interested in paying a flat fee for a virthost instead of being fast all the time and paying per MB. Mark Lastdrager Pine Internet -- email: mark(a)lastdrager.nl :: ML1400-RIPE :: tel. +31-70-3111010 http://www.pine.nl :: RIPE RegID nl.pine :: fax. +31-70-3111011 PGP key ID 92BB81D1 :: Dutch security news @ http://security.nl Today's excuse: quatnum decoherence

1 0