W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2011

Re: virtual hosting in modern browsers

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:42:07 +0100
Cc: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>, foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org, WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0AA04C87-4D2C-4C0A-8767-0E27B5B045B7@bblfish.net>
To: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <Dirk-willem.Van.gulik@bbc.co.uk>
On 26 Jan 2011, at 18:11, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Perhaps better is:
> Cheap Hosting generally relied on vhosts - where one runs many sites off a single IP address. SSL made cheap hosting difficult, because it required a unique IP address for every site. So a web service provider could not host 1000 of different secure web servers at DNS names such as https://joe.name, https://jack.name, and so on from a single IP address - but instead had to assign each side its own IP address. This has a significant organisational and technical overhead. TLS 1.1 helps overcome that limitation with what is known as Server Name Indication (SNI). This again allows a single IP address to run as many virtual hosts as one wants. An easy to understand explanation of the problem and the solution can be found in TLS Server Name Indication on Paul's Journal (Though note that this post is from 2005, things have moved on; most browsers support SNI these days - and it has been shipped with most operating systems and servers for a few years now).

Yes, that is indeed much better. I put that text up on the wiki


Perhaps one task of the group will be to take the content of that wiki,
clean it up and put it up on the WebID space. Though I don't see that
being of the highest priority.


> Dw.

Social Web Architect
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 18:42:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:21 UTC