Re: Decision about Host?

Paul Hoffman writes:
> >No.  The only server capable of changing the port number must already
> >be under the control of the site for which disambiguation of the
> >hostname is necessary.  In this case, the server receiving the request
> >may do a million different things to further disambiguate the request
> >before passing it on, including adding additional headers or just
> >changing the Request-URI, and thus including the port number is never
> >necessary.
> This is true for present software: the server software had to be
> listening to a particular port in order to even get the "Host" header, or
> anything for that matter. My thought was, in the future, one copy of a
> server might be watching more than one port number for requests. As far
> as I know, none do that now. In that case, it could be useful for the
> server to know which port the request came in on. This seems a bit
> far-fetched, given that any 1.0-speaking client would never tell the
> server, and thus it would be assuming way too much.

  The spry server can listen to more than one port (so that you can have
SSL and HTTP/SHTTP within one incarnation of the server, sharing the same
pool of proceses, etc).  I plan on extending this so that you can have
multiple configs for different interfaces all from one incarnation of the

  Its easy to keep all the fd's in an FD_SET, do a select(), and then
determine the fd that the request is coming in on.  To then look up the
appropriate config is easy.

> I think it's probably not worth adding the port for this very small
> potential in the future since it might lead to some ambiguities.


-Bill P.

Received on Saturday, 7 October 1995 13:16:01 UTC