Re: www.redhat.com

*** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 13/09/00 at 22:34 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: >On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Greg Wright wrote: >> >> It is simple, you can do it with IP's or name based, point domain.com >> as an A record to the box in question, use www (www.domain.com) as a CNAME >> to do

Re: www.redhat.com

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Vidiot wrote: > > No can do via DNS. Because there is already an entry for www.redhat.com, > that points to the machines handling HTTP requests, you can't have another > entry. > > Remember, the actual HTTP TCP request doesn't occur until AFTER the IP > address has been obt

Re: www.redhat.com

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > > Not necessarily. They could just put something in their DNS > > to forward ALL web requests to www.redhat.com. :-) > > John > > > How would you go about doing something like that using DNS? > Well, just point the "A" record to the www serve

Re: www.redhat.com

>On 13/09/00 at 22:45 Vidiot wrote: >>You changed the scope of the discussion. >Yes maybe I did, I thought I was answering someones question himself on the knuckles> you can dock it from my pay :-)) >Greg Wright OK, consider your pay docked :-) You answered a general question in regards to doin

Re: www.redhat.com

*** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 13/09/00 at 22:34 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: >On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Greg Wright wrote: >> >> It is simple, you can do it with IP's or name based, point domain.com >> as an A record to the box in question, use www (www.domain.com) as a CNAME >> to do

Re: www.redhat.com

*** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 13/09/00 at 22:45 Vidiot wrote: >You changed the scope of the discussion. Yes maybe I did, I thought I was answering someones question you can dock it from my pay :-)) Regards Greg Wright IT Consultant Sydney Australia -- *** Please trim an

Re: www.redhat.com

>I was not saying how RedHat should/could/would be able to do it, no doubt >they will be using load balancining and all sorts of software to achieve >what they want, but if the person who asked wants to have domain.com and >www.domain.com working on the same box, its easy to do, I do it on many of

Re: www.redhat.com

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Greg Wright wrote: > > It is simple, you can do it with IP's or name based, point domain.com > as an A record to the box in question, use www (www.domain.com) as a CNAME > to domain.com , of course there are other ways as well, then in Apache > configure as either IP or

Re: www.redhat.com

*** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 13/09/00 at 21:46 Vidiot wrote: >> >>It is simple, you can do it with IP's or name based, point domain.com >>as an A record to the box in question, use www (www.domain.com) as a CNAME >>to domain.com , of course there are other ways as well, the

Re: www.redhat.com

> >It is simple, you can do it with IP's or name based, point domain.com >as an A record to the box in question, use www (www.domain.com) as a CNAME >to domain.com , of course there are other ways as well, then in Apache >configure as either IP or Name based virtual server on the one Apache >

Re: www.redhat.com

*** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 13/09/00 at 21:04 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: >On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, John Aldrich wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Vidiot wrote: >> > And why should they? That means setting up an apache server on redhat.com, >> > in order just to forward requests to

Re: www.redhat.com

>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Vidiot wrote: >> And why should they? That means setting up an apache server on redhat.com, >> in order just to forward requests to another machine. >> >> In this situation, the www is needed in order for it to work. I've run >> into other corporations that have separate m

Re: www.redhat.com

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, John Aldrich wrote: > On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Vidiot wrote: > > And why should they? That means setting up an apache server on redhat.com, > > in order just to forward requests to another machine. > > > > In this situation, the www is needed in order for it to work. I've run

Re: www.redhat.com

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Vidiot wrote: > And why should they? That means setting up an apache server on redhat.com, > in order just to forward requests to another machine. > > In this situation, the www is needed in order for it to work. I've run > into other corporations that have separate machine

Re: www.redhat.com

>redhat.com and www.redhat.com are resolving to two different IPs. Looks >like they are not forwarding http request on "redhat.com" to >http://www.redhat.com . looks like a boo-boo. >-eric And why should they? That means setting up an apache server on redhat.com, in order just to forward reque

Re: www.redhat.com

redhat.com and www.redhat.com are resolving to two different IPs. Looks like they are not forwarding http request on "redhat.com" to http://www.redhat.com . looks like a boo-boo. -eric - Original Message - From: "Eddie Strohmier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesd

RE: www.redhat.com broken??

ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 March 2000 19:52 To: Ounsted, Toby Subject: Re: www.redhat.com broken?? Did you ever think that thousands of people, if not millions, are trying to download version 6.2? Wh

Re: www.redhat.com broken??

its you... will - Original Message - From: "Ounsted, Toby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:26 PM Subject: www.redhat.com broken?? > Is http://www.redhat.com broken? Or is it just > me?? > > > Toby. > > > -- >

Re: www.redhat.com down

On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 20:39:56 -0400 (EDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RedHat's Access provider is (I believe) GTE (this should be correct as > they're located in Research Triangle Park, NC which is all GTE land. I > was by there on Friday to talk to Robert Hart and he said they were > upgrading

Re: www.redhat.com down

RedHat's Access provider is (I believe) GTE (this should be correct as they're located in Research Triangle Park, NC which is all GTE land. I was by there on Friday to talk to Robert Hart and he said they were upgrading their access (I think he said a fractional DS3). If they've been down for an

Re: www.redhat.com down

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, W.D.McKinney wrote: > Here's the end of the traceroute try from my workstation. > > (snipped for good reason) > 12 101.Hssi1-0-0.GW1.RDU1.Alter.Net (137.39.75.246) 430.873 ms 439.395 ms >460.109 ms > 13 router.redhat.com (199.183.24.225) 350.910 ms 340.999 ms 329.83

Re: www.redhat.com down

-- > From: W.D.McKinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: www.redhat.com down > Date: 18. huhtikuuta 1998 8:08 > Still down, this makes 6-7 hours =/ Slashdot.org has been down for approximately the same amount of time ::starts worrying:: [...] > > Guess we are s