- From: Gintaras Richard Gircys (GG148) <rich@oester.com>
- Date: Sun, 07 May 1995 12:00:10 -0700
- To: www-talk@www10.w3.org
> > 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 i agree that this is a nervy thing, and i don't like the way it's currently done, but unless i am missing something, i don't see how adding ANY information to a documentt will fix this. > > 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 yes, it's a hack, a a benefit of running a real os (where this ability is there exactly for this reason - hopefully a temporary solution until...) > 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. > ... the above can be implemented. doing this by dns is the correct way (analogous to the correct use of MX records to do similar functional vis-a-vis email). > 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. > if this change to dns is being considered, that's good enought for me - year ago you couldn't get any to even listen to such an idea. as for the current hack being clever - it ain't; ip alias games has been a useful unix admin tool for years - saying it's clever is like saying "ain't it clever to put a bandage on that cut" - it's obvious. as for the apache hint - unless something has changed, how to do this is not documented, and the actual routing manipulations will probably be somewhat unix vendor/setup specific; there's at least two ways this can be done. rich
Received on Sunday, 7 May 1995 15:00:16 UTC