Not to mention, I think you need a dedicated IP for HTTPS. Host headers
won't work alone.
If you don't plan on doing HTTPS, then you should be ok using virtuals on a
single IP.
Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 8:41 AM
To: Redhat-List
Subject: Re: namebased vs ipbased hosting
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Robert Friberg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm setting up a server that is hosting several sites. The number
> of sites will most likely increase in the near future. I'm
> using name based virtual hosts. I understand this can be a problem
> with http clients not sending a Host-header. I like not having to
> bother with ip-adresses. Are there any other major issues?
>
> tia,
> --
> robert friberg, ensofus ab
> +46(0)708 98 57 01
With name based hosts, anyone using a browser that doesn't support
HTTP/1.1 will not be able to access any site except the default (typically
the first virtual host).
Whether this is an issue depends on your user base. I believe Netscape 3.0
was the first version to support HTTP/1.1, it is generally not an issue
except for some tools like linklint or similiar scripts that don't support
HTTP/1.1. I've found adding support is usually a very minor thing.
HTH,
Bill Carlson
------------
Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Opinions are mine,
Virtual Hospital http://www.vh.org/ | not my employer's.
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics |
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
