guideline for name-based web hosting justification

[Charles Winter]

Mury,

We started running HTTP1.1 web servers about 2 and a half years ago, using
the IBM "Go Webserver" - now under the Lotus name .... as it was one of the
only servers supporting the HTTP1.1 protocol at that time. The server also
has very nice logging, in any case we saw alot of Netscape 2.0 generation
browser hits - all going through just fine. I don't think we ever got a
customer complaint about not being able to access a site.

Charles Winter
Communication Nation, Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mury <mury at goldengate.net>
To: Jon Rust <hostmaster at vcnet.com>
Cc: Alec H. Peterson <ahp at hilander.com>; Matt Bailey <mbailey at journey.net>;
<arin-discuss at arin.net>; <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: guideline for name-based web hosting justification


>
> > You're bending the truth here, quite a bit actually. The HTTP 1.0 proto
> > may not support the Host: header, but browsers that are using HTTP 1.0
> > may very well support he Host: header. Oh, i don't know, a smallish
> > browser called Netscape, v 2.0 or better, comes to mind. Grepping
> > through my access log for today I see over 65,000 1.0 requests. 98% of
> > those are to name-based virtual hosts (which is almost all i run
> > anymore), and they all worked.
> >
> > jon
>
>
> Good to know.  Finally someone takes the time to correct me and not just
> call me a whiner.
>
> So, does anyone know a reliable source that keeps track of stats on
> browsers?  If it isn't 50% that won't get to the web site, is it
> 10%? 5%? .0001%?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Mury
> GoldenGate Internet Services
>