IP assignment for virtual webhosting
Dear lir-wg, At the end of 1999 we raised the issue of IP Assignment to virtual web-hosting and we believe that it now is high time to conclude this discussion. We received very useful feedback from the community and we also brought the discussion further to the other RIRs, ARIN and APNIC. This has now also been discussed in their respective regions. In the RIPE community there was tremendously strong endorsement for name-based web-hosting although there were also several arguments against a policy making it mandatory to use name-based web-hosting. There were technical arguments put forward, naming examples where IP-based web-hosting is necessary in order to allow certain technologies or applications such as SSL for example, but there were also voices raised against the hassle of upgrading old hard- and software. The RIPE NCC is in favour of a policy making it mandatory to use name-based web-hosting when technically feasible. However, due to some of the voices raised against this, we believe an accurate conclusion at this moment would be to not change any policy at this point, but to further strongly discourage IP-based web-hosting. 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). We wish to add this to the agenda at the upcoming RIPE meeting for further discussion and welcome any input the community may have on this matter. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
Thus spoke Nurani Nimpuno:
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).
I'd go one step further and make it mandatory to use HTTP 1.1 based hosting for _upgraded_ installations. I don't know how to enforce that, however. Otherwise, I can live with that proposal. Best regards, s. -- Sascha Luck | Multimedia Infrastructure Group Eircom PLC | Internet House / Teach Idirline phone: +353-1-7010900 | 26-34 TempleBar / Barra an Teampaill mailto: lucks@indigo.ie | Dublin 2 / Baile Atha Cliath 2
Nurani Nimpuno writes:
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).
So you would require servers like www.siemens.de to share an IP address with www.my-completely-unimportant-personal-site.de if there is no SSL or similar use? I would suggest to make exceptions for heavily used sites, too. Since the vast mayority of webservers does not fall into this category, this is no waste of address space. Robert
Robert Kiessling wrote:
Nurani Nimpuno writes:
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).
So you would require servers like www.siemens.de to share an IP address with www.my-completely-unimportant-personal-site.de if there is no SSL or similar use?
If they share the same hardware (eg. physical box serving both WWW sites), then what's the problem with sharing the same IP? Also, WWW is (was?!) supposed to bring some level of equality, so for some people Siemens might be important, for someone else that "unimportant" site might be the most important site in the world. What we can measure is how much traffic does some WWW produce and in "domain name seb-hosting" what matters is how many requests for a site fail because of outdated (old) HTML browsers. In any case we can be grateful that protocol exists so we can use "domain based web-hosting" and we can responsibly contribute to conserving IP4 space. (eg. we stopped assigning separate IP numbers for virtual web-hosts months ago) Regards! Darko
I would suggest to make exceptions for heavily used sites, too. Since the vast mayority of webservers does not fall into this category, this is no waste of address space.
Robert
Robert Kiessling wrote:
Nurani Nimpuno writes:
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).
So you would require servers like www.siemens.de to share an IP address with www.my-completely-unimportant-personal-site.de if there is no SSL or similar use?
I would suggest to make exceptions for heavily used sites, too. Since the vast mayority of webservers does not fall into this category, this is no waste of address space.
Robert
I agree. bh
participants (5)
-
Bernhard Fiser -
Darko Bulat -
Nurani Nimpuno -
Robert Kiessling -
Sascha Luck