🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6f6is4$hnn$1@samba.rahul.net>,
  c.c.eiftj@13.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
>
> In <350F4854.AD41C0B0@vitalic.com> ed zawacki <edward@vitalic.com> writes:
>
> >Does anyone have a feel for the accessability of host-header virtual
> >hosts? Which browsers/versions will not support them? Is it a
> >significant enough portion of the browser population that we would need
> >to be concerned with this?
>
>
> IP address space used by virtual hosting for web service is a non-issue.
> The real waste lies elsewhere.
>
> Host-based web sites are a solution waiting for a problem.  And they
> create a problem of their own -- direct ftp access to the virtual domain
> becomes impossible.
> --

I started this thread and now I think my ISP [not the one in the header or
sig] has some confusion over the term "static IP."  In addition to referring
to dialups that always assign the same IP to the same customer (so they can
run servers), I think I recall reading that Internic used to assign an IP
along with a domain name.  So if you changed providers you kept your IP??
Anyway, my ISP referred to a non-shared IP (ie, what 99% of all domains get)
as a "static IP."  I know, the shared one is static too.  But this may be the
source of the confusion: the old type of "static IP's" really are against
current policies.  (Please excuse me if I've made a muck of the history of
IP's here.  I did read that didn't I??)

kitchin_n.o___s@paMcomclin.net

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading