Dear Stephane, First, I simply wish to clarify that the list sent out was a list of policy decisions made in the community through discussions in the last years. These policy changes were all reached through consensus in the lir-wg. If you read the discussion on the mailing list and the minutes from the lir-wg at RIPE 36 last year, you will find that several technical restraints were brought forward for the use of name-based webhosting. This is the reason why it was agreed that name-based webhosting should not be made mandatory. It was agreed in the community to not compile a list of services, applications etc that require IP-based webhosting as this would be a rather difficult task. However, it was (and is) recognised that these technical restraints exist and are valid. This is reflected in the section describing the webhosting policy, in the raw draft of the new policy document sent out yesterday. Kind regards, Nurani *--------------------------------------------------------* | Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@ripe.net> | | Internet Address Policy Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | *--------------------------------------------------------* Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net> writes: * On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 07:40:13PM +0200, * Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@ripe.net> wrote * a message of 55 lines which said: * * > - IP-based webhosting strongly discouraged * > "IP assignment for virtual webhosting", Nurani Nimpuno (17 Nov 1999) * > http://www.ripe.int/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/19991001-20000101/msg00020.h * tml * > IP assignment for virtual webhosting, Nurani Nimpuno (RIPE36 Budapest) * * This proposal, unless it is rewritten with some comments, do not * mention the main reason people use IP-based webhosting: SSL. * * http://www.modssl.org/docs/2.8/ssl_faq.html#ToC47 *