>From http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/vhosts/name-based.html:
Name-based virtual hosting is usually simpler, since you need only configure
your DNS server to map each hostname to the correct IP address and then
configure the Apache HTTP Server to recognize the different hostnames.
Name-based virtual hosting also eases the demand for scarce IP addresses.
Therefore you should use name-based virtual hosting unless there is a specific
reason to choose IP-based virtual hosting. Some reasons why you might consider
using IP-based virtual hosting:
* Some ancient clients are not compatible with name-based virtual hosting.
For name-based virtual hosting to work, the client must send the HTTP Host
header. This is required by HTTP/1.1, and is implemented by all modern HTTP/1.0
browsers as an extension. If you need to support obsolete clients and still use
name-based virtual hosting, a possible technique is discussed at the end of
this document.
* Name-based virtual hosting cannot be used with SSL secure servers because
of the nature of the SSL protocol.
* Some operating systems and network equipment implement bandwidth
management techniques that cannot differentiate between hosts unless they are
on separate IP addresses.
I'm not sure what counts as "obsolete clients". I haven't seen a browser in
quite some time that *doesn't* send a host header. So that's your only concern.
You should probably have a catchall Service that doesn't have a headrequire
that will handle the HTTP/1.0 without host header case.
You'll notice in my last email that SSL negotiation happens before the browser
says anything. That's why SSL name-based virtual hosts do not work, unless you
have an appropriate wildcard cert and all hostnames belong to the same parent
domain. (for instance, support.mydomain.tld, help.mydomain.tld, would work with
a cert for *.mydomain.tld) The server has to present a certificate before the
browser can send the Host: header.
Joe Gooch
K12 Systems Inc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric B.
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:07 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Pound Mailing List] URL vs HeadRequire for Virtual Host?
>
> Thanks for the clarification guys. Followup question though.
> Does that
> imply that there is no reliable way to use Virtual Hosting
> for HTTP/1.0
> clients (although probably pretty much non-existant these days)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric
>
>
> "Jacques Caron" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> > At 12:56 21/10/2009, Joe Gooch wrote:
> >>Also note that the Host header is optional.... Browsers
> put it in but
> >>requests could come through without a host header. ( which is why
> >>apache has directives that work with namevirtualhosts to handle the
> >>"default" case)
> >
> > Host: is mandatory in HTTP/1.1. But in HTTP/1.0 there might
> be cases where
> > no Host: header is sent (the Host: header did not exist in
> the HTTP/1.0
> > spec, but that was more than 10 years ago), and obviously
> nothing prevents
> > someone from sending a non-conforming request.
> >
> > Jacques.
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to
> > [email protected].
> > Please contact [email protected] for questions.
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to
> [email protected].
> Please contact [email protected] for questions.
>
--
To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to [email protected].
Please contact [email protected] for questions.
