guideline for name-based web hosting justification

[Ted Pavlic]

Not sure if anyone has responded to this yet, but most larger providers I
see say it's closer to 5% (tops).

----- 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 1:02 PM
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
>
>