W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 1995

Re: your mail

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <agulbra@troll.no>
Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 16:32:11 +0200 (MET DST)
To: Jacques Caron <jcaron@pressimage.fr>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www10.w3.org>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.91.950507161326.402C-100000@pentagram.troll.no>
> Hey, this gets on my nerves. When will someone do something about it? It's so
> easy to add a f...ing "Host: " or "Full-URI: " header that would enable us
> to do that without such a hack. Multiple IPs per host _is_ a hack. It can
> only be done on a small number of OSes, and it is a real waste of IP
> addresses. I _thought_ we were running out of IP address space. Looks like
> you guys just want to use it still more quickly!

Not a great waste, no.  The _great_ waste of IP addresses is the number of
blocks being allocated, one block per organization.  I work for a small
company which has been allocated almost a hundred times as many addresses
as we use; a fairly common situation and very wasteful.

Compared to that waste, everything else is just surface noise.  We're
about to set up www.troll.no, when we have we'll occupy 257 IP addresses,
one up from 256.  And that's the worst case.  If troll.no had 1024 IP
addresses we'd would use 1025; 0.1% extra.  When even the worst case is
less than 0.25% waste, who cares?

The internet draft draft-gulbrandsen-dns-rr-srvcs-00.txt may, with one
change (an additional "actual port" data field in the RR), be used to
solve this "problem".  But it would require all the clients to change,
every single one.

I'd appreciate comments on the draft; should I put back in "actual port"? 
It was there in the very first version, but went away for lack of
perceived use.

--Arnt
Received on Sunday, 7 May 1995 11:06:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 20 January 2020 16:08:17 UTC