guideline for name-based web hosting justification

[Mury]

> > I think you didn't read my whole message...
> 
> You are in error.

Looks like he didn't communicate his message well, or you didn't take the
time to read it well.

> > So...we should create dynamic addressing for virtual hosting?
> 
> No, due to HTTP design that would be unworkable.  Browsers would cache,
> without using proper DNS caching semantics, ip addresses associated with
> domain names wether or not that address is still 'in use' by the same
> vhost.
> 
> And besides, it would be far too complex, meaning it would introduce
> instability.

That's exactly his point, don't they use sarcasm in your part of the
world?

Since it looks like it has to be spelled out.  He was making the point
that you can't compare requiring dialup providers to use dynamic IPs to
this policy of requiring hosting companies to do named based hosting.  It
is not comparing apples to apples.  Using dynamic IPs for dialup users had
very very little downside.  It is a very legitimate, aggreable way to
conserve IP space.  And most of us readily used dynamic IPs for our dialup
customers.  Hell, I'm sure for most of us it was technologically possible
before we even started our businesses.

Named based hosting is not even close a being a similar situation.  

It's just plain stupid to go around spouting that name based hosting is as
easy to accomplish (full scale) as it is to give a dialup user a dynamic
IP or have lots of your users use NAT.

Mury
GoldenGate Internet Services