- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 17 Nov '99

17 Nov '99

Clive, =Eric said: => I'd rather see a very strict policy which basically => denies the use of IP addresses for that purpose unless a *very* good => explenation as to why is provided to the hostmaster. = =But what is a "very good explanation" ? Is RIPE going to start judging what =are "good" and "bad" applications ? good point! But even before going into technical or administrative details, could the NCC please provide us with - motivation and background for opening that issue - an educated guess about the absolute or relative impact on the amount of remaining unused IPv4 address space, both in prospect as well as in retrospect? Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 __________________________________________________________________________

1 0

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Bhabuta, Denesh 17 Nov '99

17 Nov '99

> But what is a "very good explanation" ? Is RIPE going to Something along the lines of why static IP for the applicants web hosting product/services is absolutely necessary. > start judging what > are "good" and "bad" applications ? RIPE do that anyway! Regards Denesh -- Denesh Bhabuta, AMISM European Internet Services Group Level (3) Communications Limited +44-20-7864-0498 ; denesh.bhabuta(a)level3.com

2 1

AW: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Stefan.Gasteiger＠Gendorf.de 17 Nov '99

17 Nov '99

Hi Nurani! I think when *prohibiting* IP-based web hosting, some of us could run in really bad trouble with SSL-based e-shops. I personally don't know a SSL-server which supports IP-less virtuals (LIRs out there - give me advice if you know one). Are there statistics, which show how much addresses are wasted by IP-based (non SSL) web hosting? Stefan Gasteiger SG5599-RIPE > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Nurani Nimpuno [SMTP:nurani@ripe.net] > Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 17. November 1999 10:51 > An: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: IP assignment for virtual webhosting > > Dear LIR-WG, > > We would like to hear your opinions on the issue of IP assignments for > virtual webhosting. The current policy is rather old and in the meantime > a lot of things have changed; most importantly the market for webhosting > products, as well as the development of the HTTP protocol and related > software. > > TERMINOLOGY > > Before we begin, however, we would like to address the issue of > terminology > for this subject. The term 'virtual webhosting' is being used a lot but it > > is often not clear in which way it should be interpreted. We suggest the > following terminology: > > Server: A physical computer with an operating system installed on it. This > could be UNIX, Windows, Mac, or something else. The webserver runs as an > application on this OS. > > Webserver: An application program that accepts connections in order to > service requests by sending back responses. That is, a piece of software > that runs on a physical server. Examples of webservers are Apache, IIS, > and > Stronghold. > > User agent / Client: The client that initiates a request. These are often > browsers, editors, spiders (web-traversing robots), or other end-user > tools. > > Hostname: A nameserver entry that resolves to an IP address. This could be > an A or a CNAME record. > > Virtual host: A hostname resolving to the IP address of a server, the > webserver of which handles several hostnames. > > IP-based virtual hosting: Many hostnames hosted on the same server, one IP > address for each hostname. > > Namebased virtual hosting: Many hostnames hosted on the same server, all > hostnames resolve to the same IP address. > > OUR SUGGESTION > > The RIPE NCC has followed the deployment of HTTP 1.1 closely over the past > year. According to recent surveys, a vast majority of clients now support > HTTP 1.1 (namebased HTTP requests). It is our belief that the majority of > webserver applications support namebased webhosting as well. > > In recent years we have seen a boom in the registration of second-level > domains. This has led to a great demand for webhosting services. Using one > IP address per domain uses an enormous amount of IP addresses. With HTTP > 1.1 this is no longer necessary. We therefore suggest to promote namebased > webhosting and to change the current policy so that IP addresses can no > longer be assigned for IP-based webhosting. > > Please provide us with any feedback or comments you might have. > > Kind regards, > > Nurani Nimpuno (Registration Services Manager) and > Simon Skals (Hostmaster) > RIPE NCC > >

1 0

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Yuval Shchory 17 Nov '99

17 Nov '99

Dear Nurani, It seems that there is a problem with implementing single-IP server, at least with some customers/applications. When you point a single IP to a whole server, you cannot back-resolve to all hostnames. Several of our customers REQUIRE that the IP would back-resolve to their own server's name. This request is sometimes a strategic decision, sometimes an applicative request. Regards, --- Yuval Shchory Projects Manager NetVision's Corporate Technical Support Department eMail: syuval(a)netvision.net.il interFAX: 03-5480255 ---

1 0

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Bhabuta, Denesh 17 Nov '99

17 Nov '99

> Promote namebased web hosting seems to me a good idea, but I > do not agree to > forbid IP-based webhosting. In fact, with old user agents, > any user can know > the list of all webs hosted under a single IP address. And > for an hosting > company (our main activity), it could make a fuss that one > company amoung > its customers knows it is hosted on the same server as one of its > competitors... This is not necessarily the case... you can 'disable' that list... my own servers are at 212.15.64.41 - going to the IP address within the browser does not bring up a list of web sites hosted on there... I do agree though that we should not totally forbid IP based hosting... have the default as name-based hosting, with some good reasons required for IP based hosting... in the same way as static vs dynamic dialup IPs... Regards Denesh -- Denesh Bhabuta, AMISM European Internet Services Group Level (3) Communications Limited +44-20-7864-0498 ; denesh.bhabuta(a)level3.com

1 0

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by LOUAIL Thierry 17 Nov '99

17 Nov '99

Hello, Promote namebased web hosting seems to me a good idea, but I do not agree to forbid IP-based webhosting. In fact, with old user agents, any user can know the list of all webs hosted under a single IP address. And for an hosting company (our main activity), it could make a fuss that one company amoung its customers knows it is hosted on the same server as one of its competitors... Regards. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Thierry LOUAIL ECRITEL Directeur Associé www.ecritel.fr Tel: 0140612000 3 rue Pondichery PARIS 15 > -----Message d'origine----- > De: Nurani Nimpuno [SMTP:nurani@ripe.net] > Date: mercredi 17 novembre 1999 10:51 > À: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Objet: IP assignment for virtual webhosting > > Dear LIR-WG, > > We would like to hear your opinions on the issue of IP assignments for > virtual webhosting. The current policy is rather old and in the meantime > a lot of things have changed; most importantly the market for webhosting > products, as well as the development of the HTTP protocol and related > software. > > TERMINOLOGY > > Before we begin, however, we would like to address the issue of > terminology > for this subject. The term 'virtual webhosting' is being used a lot but it > > is often not clear in which way it should be interpreted. We suggest the > following terminology: > > Server: A physical computer with an operating system installed on it. This > could be UNIX, Windows, Mac, or something else. The webserver runs as an > application on this OS. > > Webserver: An application program that accepts connections in order to > service requests by sending back responses. That is, a piece of software > that runs on a physical server. Examples of webservers are Apache, IIS, > and > Stronghold. > > User agent / Client: The client that initiates a request. These are often > browsers, editors, spiders (web-traversing robots), or other end-user > tools. > > Hostname: A nameserver entry that resolves to an IP address. This could be > an A or a CNAME record. > > Virtual host: A hostname resolving to the IP address of a server, the > webserver of which handles several hostnames. > > IP-based virtual hosting: Many hostnames hosted on the same server, one IP > address for each hostname. > > Namebased virtual hosting: Many hostnames hosted on the same server, all > hostnames resolve to the same IP address. > > OUR SUGGESTION > > The RIPE NCC has followed the deployment of HTTP 1.1 closely over the past > year. According to recent surveys, a vast majority of clients now support > HTTP 1.1 (namebased HTTP requests). It is our belief that the majority of > webserver applications support namebased webhosting as well. > > In recent years we have seen a boom in the registration of second-level > domains. This has led to a great demand for webhosting services. Using one > IP address per domain uses an enormous amount of IP addresses. With HTTP > 1.1 this is no longer necessary. We therefore suggest to promote namebased > webhosting and to change the current policy so that IP addresses can no > longer be assigned for IP-based webhosting. > > Please provide us with any feedback or comments you might have. > > Kind regards, > > Nurani Nimpuno (Registration Services Manager) and > Simon Skals (Hostmaster) > RIPE NCC

2 1

RE: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
by Matthew Robinson 17 Nov '99

17 Nov '99

We have been employing the policy of enforcing HTTP 1.1 IP-less virtuals for a while - only allowing IP addresses for SSL certificates. This seems to be working well. I'm told that some versions of SSL servers can support IP-less virtuals as well which is a step in the right direction. I think that the proposal is a good one and should be followed up with a policy of reclaiming the used 'virtual server' address space back. Kind regards Matthew -----Original Message----- From: Christian Kratzer [mailto:ck@toplink.net] Sent: 17 November 1999 10:23 To: Nurani Nimpuno Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting Usage of IP Addresses for virtual hosting should be restricted to purposes where this might be explicitly required for example for a SSL certificate for a server. But not for running massive hosting of "homepages".

1 0

Top 100 Maintainers List 19991108
by RIPE Database Administration 08 Nov '99

08 Nov '99

1 0

ICANN Welcomes New Directors
by NCC Role Account 01 Nov '99

01 Nov '99

Reply to: ncc From: RIPE NCC Staff <ncc(a)ripe.net> X-Organisation: RIPE Network Coordination Centre X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444 X-Fax: +31 20 535 4445 Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 13:03:19 +0100 Sender: ncc(a)ripe.net [ Apologies for any duplicates] Dear Colleagues, FYI, in the message attached below please find the ICANN announcement containing the list of new Directors appointed to the ICANN Board by the three Supporting Organisations. For biographies of each Director and other relevant URLs please consult the list of links provided in the ICANN announcement. The RIPE NCC would also like to announce the formal Website for the Address Supporting Organisation. APNIC has kindly volunteered to host the ASO Website that can be reached at: http://www.aso.icann.org Regards, Paul Rendek ----- From: "Andrew McLaughlin" <mclaughlin(a)pobox.com> To: "Icann-Announce" <icann-announce(a)icann.org> Subject: [AC-COORD] ICANN Welcomes New Directors Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:38:11 -0700 ICANN is pleased to announce that nine new Directors have been named to the Board by its three supporting organizations. DIRECTORS SELECTED BY THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (ASO): - Robert Blokzijl - Ken Fockler - Pindar Wong DIRECTORS SELECTED BY THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (DNSO): - Amadeu Abril I Abril - Jonathan Cohen - Alejandro Pisanty DIRECTORS SELECTED BY THE PROTOCOL SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (PSO): - Jean-Francois Abramatic - Vinton G. Cerf - Philip Davidson The members of the Initial Board congratulate and welcome these new Directors, and thank the numerous participants in the supporting organizations who worked hard to complete the nomination and voting processes prior to ICANN's upcoming round of meetings in Los Angeles, November 1-4. Andrew McLaughlin ICANN LINKS - ICANN: <http://www.icann.org> - Biographical information on the new directors: <http://www.icann.org/general/new-director-bios-28oct99.htm> - Address Supporting Organization: <http://www.aso.icann.org/> - Domain Name Supporting Organization: <http://www.dnso.org/> - Protocol Supporting Organization: <http://www.icann.org/pso/psonew.htm> - ICANN Los Angeles meetings: <http://www.icann.org/losangeles99/losangeles-details.htm>

1 0

7 days delay
by mediaWays Hostmaster 27 Oct '99

27 Oct '99

[ Moderator note: changed local-ir(a)ripe.net -> lir-wg(a)ripe.net ] Dear community, I can acknowledge that delay. I'm waiting 8 days for a request response. That does not make me really lucky. Inquires again with NCC#Nr. that possibly could help. Regards, _____________________________ Stephan Mankopf +49 5241 80 88729 stephan.mankopf(a)mediaways.net

1 0