policy change: static verification methods
Hello all, A few weeks ago I send the following proposal to the lir-wg mailing list for comments. Since no comments were received, we are assuming that nobody has objections to change the policy. We have therefore decided to implement it starting immediately. Kind regards, Paula Caslav RIPE NCC ------- Forwarded Message Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:38:52 +0100 From: Paula Caslav <paula@ripe.net> Sender: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net To: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: static verification methods Hello all, At the Local IR working group at RIPE 32, the issue was raised about changing the policy for applying verification methods to cable connections. Here is our proposal on how to change this policy. First some background: A few years ago, the IANA asked the Regional Registries to keep an eye on "very small assignments to individuals". This means cases like static dial-up where a registry has to use one IP address per dial-up customer. Since these kinds of assignments could potentially use up a lot of address space, it was decided to strongly discourage using static addresses for this and that that we should monitor these assignments more closely. To do this, any Local Registry that assigns a lot of addresses for this purpose (more than 1024 addresses), was requested that they would have to enter each of these customers in the database individually (as is the case with all assignments to end-users). Later when some Local Registries had a problem with entering all their dial-up customers in the database for confidentiality problems, it was decided to add an alternative method that they could instead send us a weekly report showing the customers they added that week. This is so that the Regional Registries could still keep track of these kinds of assignments. In the last few years, more and more technologies have come along that fall under this procedure. Aside from static dial-up, other services such as web hosting (when not using http 1.1), cable connections, ADSL connections, some ISDN connections, etc.. often need to assign one IP address per customer. In many of these cases, using one IP address per customer is necessary because the host is usually permanently connected to the Internet. The issue was raised that applying these verification methods to technologies that are permanently connected to the Internet and need one IP address per customer, is too cumbersome and adds a lot of extra administrative overhead for the provider. We also realise that there are inconsistencies between the Regional Registries in dealing with these technologies. For these reasons, we would like to change the policy and make a distinction between technologies that are usually connected to the Internet permanently and those that are connected only temporarily. Here is the proposal for the new policy, please give us your comments by the end of next week. Permanently online: This includes technologies such as cable, ADSL, and various server (web, ftp, etc..) connections that are usually permanently connected to the Internet. It can also include analogue or digital (ISDN) dial-up connections if they are used for a service that needs to be permanently online and for services like dial-out on demand. For most of these connections, you need to assign one IP address per connection, even if using DHCP (which we recommend because it makes renumbering easier). We propose to change the policy and to not apply the verification methods to these types of connections. For these technologies, we still need to keep track of the amounts of addresses being assigned, however we would do this whenever the customer requests a new assignment for this purpose. Since these services are permanently connected to the Internet, we will probe these addresses to verify whether the assigned addresses really are in use. It must therefore be made clear to the RIPE NCC exactly which block of IP addresses is used for this purpose. We would expect to see that a high percentage are reachable. We might at this point request additional information to show that they have really used the addresses that were assigned for this purpose in the past- this could be in the form of a list of all URLs assigned, their DNS records, config files, etc.. something to show that the IP addresses are all in use. Virtual web hosting is the only one that has an alternative available (http 1.1) that would allow assigning one IP address for several hosts. Since we want to encourage that people use http 1.1, we propose to continue applying the special verification methods to virtual web hosting that doesn't use http 1.1. Temporarily online: This includes technologies that only need to be connected to the Internet temporarily, such as most telephone dial-up connections. We recommend the use of DHCP and assigning IP addresses based on the number of modem ports. We will therefore continue to apply the special verification methods to any organisation that assigns IP addresses based on the number of customers instead. ------- End of Forwarded Message
At 16:44 +0100 23/02/99, Paula Caslav wrote:
Hello all,
A few weeks ago I send the following proposal to the lir-wg mailing list for comments. Since no comments were received, we are assuming that nobody has objections to change the policy. We have therefore decided to implement it starting immediately.
Kind regards,
Paula Caslav RIPE NCC
I agree mostly on the proposal. But please bear in mind that in most european places, local connection are not free. So another use of static IP is the setup of MX records on dialup connection that are down most of the time. I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those. -- don't send mail to this account! It's a not often checked mail account. use support@linkline.be instead.
In message <v04104400b2f87a1a893d@[212.35.1.226]>, Nicolas Jungers writes:
I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those.
I disagree, this is just the same kind of "ancient uptodate information" which makes people insist they get a C class worth of addresses for their firewall. But it would help of course, if somebody would write a document and stick it on the RIPE webserver saying "this is why you have to run http 1.1" and another one saying "this is why you only get the addresses you can prove you need" which ISPs could point such customers at to take the air out of the "...or somebody else will get my business!" argument. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <v04104400b2f87a1a893d@[212.35.1.226]>, Nicolas Jungers writes:
I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those.
I disagree, this is just the same kind of "ancient uptodate information" which makes people insist they get a C class worth of addresses for their firewall.
Yep! We are running a large number of webservers per ip-address and we have not recieved any big complaints about this.. And if someone complains they normally understand why we do it this way when we explain why. Dont waste adress-space today that you might need tomorrow! /Uffe
Hi,
At 16:44 +0100 23/02/99, Paula Caslav wrote:
Hello all,
A few weeks ago I send the following proposal to the lir-wg mailing list for comments. Since no comments were received, we are assuming that nobody has objections to change the policy. We have therefore decided to implement it starting immediately.
Kind regards,
Paula Caslav RIPE NCC
I agree mostly on the proposal. But please bear in mind that in most european places, local connection are not free. So another use of static IP is the setup of MX records on dialup connection that are down most of the time.
this is true. We use static ip's for commercial dialup customers who use privat ip internally with a nat capable router and run perhaps their own mailsevers. They often also want to be able to telnet,ssh back into their networks through port forwarding on the nat router. It would be a waste to start making entries in the ripe database for these single ip's. Any non router dialup users or client only users (small network with nat capable router without any mailservers) will do just fine with a dynamic ip address. The difference here lies in client only setups and setups with local mail etc... servers.
I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those.
this is a hot one and I have the need to share some thoughts on this: The large bulk of the web sites we and propably anybody hosts are of the "homepage" kind of variety of which there are loads on one server. Managing ip address allocation for these kind of low end web servers is a major pita. Which alone is reason engough that we are successively converting all these kinds of servers to name based virtual hosting. The point is not having a http1.1 compliant browser. The point is that the browser sends the http "Host:" header which the absolute majority of browsers already do. This has nothing to do with http1.1 Larger sites running on dedicated servers will always get their separate ip's and might even have a /29 bound to the loopback interface for additional sub websites. But this is totally different from what wee see in the typical virtual web hosting market where we are seeing ip's burned by the truckload. It is especially sad the the majority mass web hosters seem to have loads of /24's with thousands of ip's full of "homepages". They get their address space from upstreams with large aw's who don't ask many questions but prefer to please the customers. They also seldomly reuse those adresses as they seem to concentrate on price dumping and thus don't have the manpower or any intention to cleanup. These are the same kind of people that register truckloads of domains and always create new ripe handles for the contacts. We have even seen one major web hoster and ripe lir enter single ip inetnum objects for each and every web hosting customer. This sort of defeats the whole purpose of assignment windows. Neat trick: become a registry, get yourself a /28 or /27 aw. Then bind a /22 to the loopback of some linux box. All you need to do is add an inetnum object each time you setup a new webserver. All of the above is why I am very happy ripe is now also giving the larger registries a bit of attention. We should all get an even chance in this game of being an ISP/IPP/Iwhatever It is our impression that because of such practices the smaller registriers often have to subnet their networks perhaps a bit too tightly with not too much spare when on the other hand others burn ip's by the truckload..... ---- ok timeout..... thats enough thoughts for the first round. I will now step back and wait to be flamed ..... ;) Greetings Christian Kratzer Toplink -- TopLink Internet Services GmbH ck@171.2.195.in-addr.arpa Christian Kratzer http://www.toplink.net/ Phone: +49 7032 2701-0 Fax: +49 7032 2701-19 FreeBSD spoken here!
On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 08:54:41PM +0100, Christian Kratzer wrote: Hi,
I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those.
The point is not having a http1.1 compliant browser. The point is that the browser sends the http "Host:" header which the absolute majority of browsers already do. This has nothing to do with http1.1
I can only agree. We run several ten thousands of name based virtual web servers, mostly "private" homepages but also a significant percentage of business customers. There hasn't been a single complaint that you cannot access those sites with an ancient browser, mostly because you need a slightly recent browser anyway to use 'modern' features like tables or forms :) Regards, -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 6635 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 6635 349 Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster@xlink.net [ Xlink Internet Consulting GmbH, Sitz Koeln ] [ Amtsgericht Koeln HRB 3526, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michael Rotert ]
I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those.
This is nonsense. About two years ago we switched to virtual websites without a static IP#. We did a lot of testing beforehand, and found < 0.5% of the webbrowsers not sending Host:. This was over two years ago. This number surely has dropped significantly since, and I bet it's below 0.1% now. These stats were made on our website, which gets about 4 to 5 million hits a day. Imho this is no longer a valid reason to keep using static ip#s for virtual websites. And like my collegue (;)) from Xlink, we havent had a single complaint in the two years we've been doing this. Regards, Cor ps: actually we did get a complaint ;) The first virtual website happened to be a sexually oriented site, and another customer with a faulty browser was really confused why he didnt see his own site, but some sex site :) So ever since we set up a dummy site as the first virtual website. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Cor Bosman | XS4ALL | tel: +31-(0)20-398-7654 | | cor@xs4all.net | Technical Manager | fax: +31-(0)20-398-7601 | ---------------------Living on the edge of chaos-------------------------SP6--
Dear Christian, With things like static IPs for commmercial customers, we would consider the reason for using static IP addresses and if there is a good technical reason for it (as it seems to be in this case), then we would also not apply the verification methods to it. Kind regards, Paula Caslav RIPE NCC Christian Kratzer <ck@toplink.net> writes: * Hi, * * > At 16:44 +0100 23/02/99, Paula Caslav wrote: * > >Hello all, * > > * > >A few weeks ago I send the following proposal to the lir-wg mailing * > >list for comments. Since no comments were received, we are assuming * > >that nobody has objections to change the policy. We have therefore * > >decided to implement it starting immediately. * > > * > >Kind regards, * > > * > >Paula Caslav * > >RIPE NCC * > > * > * > I agree mostly on the proposal. But please bear in mind that in most * > european places, local connection are not free. So another use of * > static IP is the setup of MX records on dialup connection that are * > down most of the time. * * this is true. We use static ip's for commercial dialup customers who * use privat ip internally with a nat capable router and run perhaps * their own mailsevers. They often also want to be able to telnet,ssh * back into their networks through port forwarding on the nat router. * * It would be a waste to start making entries in the ripe database * for these single ip's. * * Any non router dialup users or client only users (small network with * nat capable router without any mailservers) will do just fine with * a dynamic ip address. * * The difference here lies in client only setups and setups with * local mail etc... servers. * * > I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell * > the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non * > http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer * > to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those. * * this is a hot one and I have the need to share some thoughts * on this: * * The large bulk of the web sites we and propably anybody hosts are of * the "homepage" kind of variety of which there are loads on one server. * * Managing ip address allocation for these kind of low end web servers * is a major pita. Which alone is reason engough that we are successively * converting all these kinds of servers to name based virtual hosting. * * The point is not having a http1.1 compliant browser. The point is * that the browser sends the http "Host:" header which the absolute * majority of browsers already do. This has nothing to do with http1.1 * * Larger sites running on dedicated servers will always get their * separate ip's and might even have a /29 bound to the loopback * interface for additional sub websites. * * But this is totally different from what wee see in the typical * virtual web hosting market where we are seeing ip's burned * by the truckload. * * It is especially sad the the majority mass web hosters seem to * have loads of /24's with thousands of ip's full of "homepages". * * They get their address space from upstreams with large aw's who * don't ask many questions but prefer to please the customers. They * also seldomly reuse those adresses as they seem to concentrate on * price dumping and thus don't have the manpower or any intention * to cleanup. These are the same kind of people that register * truckloads of domains and always create new ripe handles for * the contacts. * * We have even seen one major web hoster and ripe lir enter single * ip inetnum objects for each and every web hosting customer. * This sort of defeats the whole purpose of assignment windows. * * Neat trick: become a registry, get yourself a /28 or /27 aw. * Then bind a /22 to the loopback of some linux box. All you need * to do is add an inetnum object each time you setup a new * webserver. * * All of the above is why I am very happy ripe is now also * giving the larger registries a bit of attention. We should all * get an even chance in this game of being an ISP/IPP/Iwhatever * * It is our impression that because of such practices the smaller * registriers often have to subnet their networks perhaps a bit * too tightly with not too much spare when on the other hand * others burn ip's by the truckload..... * * ---- * * ok timeout..... thats enough thoughts for the first round. * I will now step back and wait to be flamed ..... ;) * * * Greetings * Christian Kratzer * Toplink * * * -- * TopLink Internet Services GmbH ck@171.2.195.in-addr.ar * pa * Christian Kratzer http://www.toplink.net/ * Phone: +49 7032 2701-0 * Fax: +49 7032 2701-19 FreeBSD spoken here! *
Hi Paula,
Dear Christian,
With things like static IPs for commmercial customers, we would consider the reason for using static IP addresses and if there is a good technical reason for it (as it seems to be in this case), then we would also not apply the verification methods to it.
I never suspected ripe would not approve usage of ip's for a legit. techincal purpose. Rather I was a little upset about the way people burn ip's by the truckload for very simple web mass web hosting. Greetings Christian -- TopLink Internet Services GmbH ck@171.2.195.in-addr.arpa Christian Kratzer http://www.toplink.net/ Phone: +49 7032 2701-0 Fax: +49 7032 2701-19 FreeBSD spoken here!
Thus spoke Nicolas Jungers:
At 16:44 +0100 23/02/99, Paula Caslav wrote:
Hello all,
A few weeks ago I send the following proposal to the lir-wg mailing list for comments. Since no comments were received, we are assuming that nobody has objections to change the policy. We have therefore decided to implement it starting immediately.
Kind regards,
Paula Caslav RIPE NCC
I agree mostly on the proposal. But please bear in mind that in most european places, local connection are not free. So another use of static IP is the setup of MX records on dialup connection that are down most of the time.
I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those.
Also mostly customers would like to have the microsoft server as "virtual web hostings" and therefore (unfortunately) an ip address per customer is needed. To put the acceptance of http1.1 in the net is a good idea, but first you need to tell the global players to implement it correctly with all possibilities ( i am talking about microsoft ). I know that apache exists for windows nt and some good ftp servers; but most of the time customers would like to have a "Frontpage Web" like click-and-fun desktops and webs. It's the customer which is driven by microsoft. I dislike Windows NT and like Linux of its stability and flexability (just to tell) Jan
-- don't send mail to this account! It's a not often checked mail account. use support@linkline.be instead.
Hi,
Also mostly customers would like to have the microsoft server as "virtual web hostings" and therefore (unfortunately) an ip address per customer is needed.
it isn't. As of IIS4.0 name based virtual web servers are supported. -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 6635 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 6635 349 Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster@xlink.net [ Xlink Internet Consulting GmbH, Sitz Koeln ] [ Amtsgericht Koeln HRB 3526, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michael Rotert ]
Hello.
Also mostly customers would like to have the microsoft server as "virtual web hostings" and therefore (unfortunately) an ip address per customer is needed.
it isn't. As of IIS4.0 name based virtual web servers are supported.
But it only works if you explicitely enter the same IP over and over again where the typical "eNTe admin" would not even think of not entering unique IPs for every web servers. It works. But you have to search for it. We found out as a customer wanted two /24s for vhosting. What fun it was telling him it will work with just one... oh well. Regards, Alexander Koch -- SGH Internet Division, Alexander Koch, Systems Administration Hannover, Germany, Phone +49 511 909198 0, Fax +49 511 391307
Hello Its not so much the virtual Web sites, they I agree can be run on a single IP server However When it comes to giving each individual customer FTP access to mange their site or have an FTP site in its own right IIS4 demands that you have unique IP's Unless of course someone knows a better method that is not an administrative nightmare.
Hello.
Also mostly customers would like to have the microsoft server as "virtual web hostings" and therefore (unfortunately) an ip address per customer is needed.
it isn't. As of IIS4.0 name based virtual web servers are supported.
But it only works if you explicitely enter the same IP over and over again where the typical "eNTe admin" would not even think of not entering unique IPs for every web servers.
It works. But you have to search for it. We found out as a customer wanted two /24s for vhosting. What fun it was telling him it will work with just one... oh well.
Regards, Alexander Koch
-- SGH Internet Division, Alexander Koch, Systems Administration Hannover, Germany, Phone +49 511 909198 0, Fax +49 511 391307
__ | Best Regards |_ /\ /**\ Chris Arnold (Charlie Alpha) Director - Hiway Communications Ltd Internet e-mail: chris@hiway.co.uk Tel +44 (0)1635 573300 FAX: +44 (0)1635 573329 URL= http://www.hiway.co.uk
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 12:45:51PM -0000, Chris Arnold wrote:
Hello
Its not so much the virtual Web sites, they I agree can be run on a single IP server
However When it comes to giving each individual customer FTP access to mange their site or have an FTP site in its own right IIS4 demands that you have unique IP's
Unless of course someone knows a better method that is not an administrative nightmare.
FTP identifies a user with a username and password. BTW, if you want to host many servers on a single machine you should learn about scripting. This usually solves all administrative nightmares. Greetigns, -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 6635 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 6635 349 Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 3 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster@xlink.net [ Xlink Internet Consulting GmbH, Sitz Koeln ] [ Amtsgericht Koeln HRB 3526, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michael Rotert ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 25-Feb-99 Chris Arnold wrote:
Hello
Its not so much the virtual Web sites, they I agree can be run on a single IP server
However When it comes to giving each individual customer FTP access to mange their site or have an FTP site in its own right IIS4 demands that you have unique IP's
Unless of course someone knows a better method that is not an administrative nightmare.
AFAIK there is no alternative. FTP cannot distinguish between a request for one domain or another based on the contents of the protocol. There are two alternatives here... either we rewrite the protocol to send the hostname as part of the address or you give static IP addresses to all of your ftp sites. Adam - ---------------------------------- If this message isn't signed, it probably isn't me. Adam Morris - Systems Engineer - Onyx Internet If you just try long enough and hard enough, you can always manage to boot yourself in the posterior. -- A. J. Liebling - ---------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNtZ+QjxztoTO1QFNAQEfWQP+NcjkSHZtEA/UNRRHgggefjF89gkJO6fP MAODN7D76mmnKnmLkBbpf+z5FIxjyqaYFRhLz0uLeiWNgQ+9GX+obVwAY4gG37dq r+PZDtQEulaTAsSZgbWY9aVx5OkVsvNisKoAAqZZhFJcOGclhXA7q0Q7w8v/t9i7 qwkucpqVj7E= =pwMP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 26-Feb-99 Adam Morris wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 25-Feb-99 Chris Arnold wrote:
Hello
Its not so much the virtual Web sites, they I agree can be run on a single IP server
However When it comes to giving each individual customer FTP access to mange their site or have an FTP site in its own right IIS4 demands that you have unique IP's
Unless of course someone knows a better method that is not an administrative nightmare.
AFAIK there is no alternative. FTP cannot distinguish between a request for one domain or another based on the contents of the protocol. There are two alternatives here... either we rewrite the protocol to send the hostname as part of the address or you give static IP addresses to all of your ftp sites.
Adam
Surley you can assign a root directory based on an account/password sequence (like you can with most UNIX versions of FTP), I have accounts on machines which only allow me access to certains parts or file system. Is this another rewrite of the protocol by that large software vendor.
- ---------------------------------- If this message isn't signed, it probably isn't me. Adam Morris - Systems Engineer - Onyx Internet
If you just try long enough and hard enough, you can always manage to boot yourself in the posterior. -- A. J. Liebling
- ----------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNtZ+QjxztoTO1QFNAQEfWQP+NcjkSHZtEA/UNRRHgggefjF89gkJO6fP MAODN7D76mmnKnmLkBbpf+z5FIxjyqaYFRhLz0uLeiWNgQ+9GX+obVwAY4gG37dq r+PZDtQEulaTAsSZgbWY9aVx5OkVsvNisKoAAqZZhFJcOGclhXA7q0Q7w8v/t9i7 qwkucpqVj7E= =pwMP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------- Stephen Burley Senior Hostmaster for UUNET Date: 26-Feb-99 Time: 16:02:09 http://www.uk.uu.net ---------------------------------- An MCI WorldCom Company
Stephen Burley said:
When it comes to giving each individual customer FTP access to mange their site or have an FTP site in its own right IIS4 demands that you have unique IP's
AFAIK there is no alternative. FTP cannot distinguish between a request for one domain or another based on the contents of the protocol.
Surley you can assign a root directory based on an account/password sequence (like you can with most UNIX versions of FTP)
Yes, but they aren't separate sites. If you want to offer anonymous FTP to each site under its own name, they need separate IP addresses. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 181 371 1138 Director of | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 181 371 1037 Software Development | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 973 377646 Demon Internet Ltd. |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 26-Feb-99 Stephen Burley wrote:
Surley you can assign a root directory based on an account/password sequence (like you can with most UNIX versions of FTP), I have accounts on machines which only allow me access to certains parts or file system. Is this another rewrite of the protocol by that large software vendor.
No... I was thinking about anonymous FTP sites... (I want a web site and an ftp site www.domainname.co.uk and ftp.domainname.co.uk) Yes, if it is private access only then there is nothing wrong with saying just ftp to www.yourdomainname.co.uk and login with the following username and password. Now hopefully people will understand why I said what I said... :-) Adam - ---------------------------------- If this message isn't signed, it probably isn't me. Adam Morris - Systems Engineer - Onyx Internet He looked at me as if I was a side dish he hadn't ordered. - ---------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNtbSBTxztoTO1QFNAQHG+wP9F+8yJPsw1YVpP+OBmwcnHukbBD5V1JO0 1I5mSl1XvZZ8rzWb/GHYm3/OGTrMmYzFum0x6Mb81f0lJs3BJsrELR2Qt8iSmI9Y 8UTgTBZ7a0jVQ+BVsr4ZCawtzOdgmN1rUSxz/PRoFwJkGVFlc30etVZcAbR31TYk nSJx0zvcu0w= =2eO2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 1999-02-26T10:58:10, Adam Morris <Adam.Morris@onyx.net> said:
AFAIK there is no alternative. FTP cannot distinguish between a request for one domain or another based on the contents of the protocol. There are two alternatives here... either we rewrite the protocol to send the hostname as part of the address or you give static IP addresses to all of your ftp sites.
Or embed the host identifier in the path. Nothings wrong with "look for our files at ftp://ftp.domain.com/domain/" is there? Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brie -- Lars Marowsky-Brie Network Management teuto.net Netzdienste GmbH - DPN Verbund-Partner
On 23-Feb-99 Nicolas Jungers wrote:
At 16:44 +0100 23/02/99, Paula Caslav wrote:
Hello all,
A few weeks ago I send the following proposal to the lir-wg mailing list for comments. Since no comments were received, we are assuming that nobody has objections to change the policy. We have therefore decided to implement it starting immediately.
Kind regards,
Paula Caslav RIPE NCC
I agree mostly on the proposal. But please bear in mind that in most european places, local connection are not free. So another use of static IP is the setup of MX records on dialup connection that are down most of the time.
I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those.
I disagree we have created a whole product using http1.1 and get no complaints about not being able to reach the site. It might encourage people to upgrade to a newer version browser and so speed up the use of http1.1.
-- don't send mail to this account! It's a not often checked mail account. use support@linkline.be instead.
---------------------------------- Stephen Burley Senior Hostmaster for UUNET Date: 25-Feb-99 Time: 08:08:47 http://www.uk.uu.net ---------------------------------- An MCI WorldCom Company
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Stephen Burley wrote:
On 23-Feb-99 Nicolas Jungers wrote:
At 16:44 +0100 23/02/99, Paula Caslav wrote:
Hello all,
A few weeks ago I send the following proposal to the lir-wg mailing list for comments. Since no comments were received, we are assuming that nobody has objections to change the policy. We have therefore decided to implement it starting immediately.
Kind regards,
Paula Caslav RIPE NCC
I agree mostly on the proposal. But please bear in mind that in most european places, local connection are not free. So another use of static IP is the setup of MX records on dialup connection that are down most of the time.
I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those.
I disagree we have created a whole product using http1.1 and get no complaints about not being able to reach the site. It might encourage people to upgrade to a newer version browser and so speed up the use of http1.1.
I agree, we have been using IP-less virtual hosting with HTTP 1.1 for over a year and not received a single complaint. It is more a choice of webserver technology I would say. -- Janne ------------- ELCOM ------------- Network Operations Center --------- Jan-Erik Eriksson mailto: jee@alcom.aland.fi ELCOM phone: +358 18 23500 PB 233, Torggatan 10 fax: +358 18 14643 FIN-22100 Mariehamn URL: http://www.alcom.aland.fi
participants (15)
-
Adam Morris -
Alexander Koch -
Chris Arnold -
Christian Kratzer -
Clive D.W. Feather -
cor＠xs4all.net -
Jan Czmok -
Jan-Erik Eriksson -
Lars Marowsky-Bree -
Michael van Elst -
Nicolas Jungers -
Paula Caslav -
Poul-Henning Kamp -
Stephen Burley -
Ulf Vedenbrant