Hello all. I have a few questions regarding name-based hosting as opposed to having an IP for each site. I would like to hear from the people who know the facts, not just assumptions or "I've heard that..." I need to be able to assure customers that an IP is not a neccessity unless they need SSL. I'm sure others can benefit from this knowledge as well.

1. What are the disadvantages of having a name-based site?
2. How many domains can be hosted on a single IP address?
3. Are there any situations other than SSL that would require an IP address?

Thanks in advance for clearing up the above issues. :)

1. If the ip goes down for some reason then all of the sites are effected.
2. Lots I dont really think there is a limit
3. If you would like Anonymous FTP you would need your own IP and for SSL. Those are the main advantages.

Thanks for the input. So if I have 10,000 domains on one IP address, there will be no performance issues?

Anyone else have anything to add?

Old browsers or system utilities or custom scripts/applications which are not HTTP/1.1 compliant will break on name-based hosting. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by freakb0y
Thanks for the input. So if I have 10,000 domains on one IP address, there will be no performance issues?

Anyone else have anything to add?


If you place 10,000 on one server the only limitation should be the server itself. I don't think anyone here has that many sites on one server though I could be wrong.

Here is the only clear reason I could see for a site to have it's own dedicated IP.

1) Needs their own SSL cert.
2) Wants to run anonymous ftp.

Other than that they shouldn't want one unless they wanted the IP to reflect their own domain name.

Extra IPs shuoldnt be that hard to get. Just request them and you shouldnt be rejected. Talk to your ISP or Colo.

Originally posted by DaHOST
Here is the only clear reason I could see for a site to have it's own dedicated IP.

1) Needs their own SSL cert.
2) Wants to run anonymous ftp.

Other than that they shouldn't want one unless they wanted the IP to reflect their own domain name.


Well this is the 'popular' view and was born from the finite IPv4 pool.. etc etc blah blah...

I was looking at our upstreams various policies earlier today, and particularly at that relating to SPAM, so I can ensure it's reflected in our own offerings... and I noticed this clause, which for some reason I hadn't noticed before..

-------------
(5) If you host websites, we suggest that you use a minimum of one IP address per customer so that MFN has the ability to block only that customer which is distributing UBE/UCE.
-------------

Of course, for the new breed of ******* spammer using scripts plus the veteran, savvy spammers who are unlikely to use a domain/IP that is worth tracking anyway, this won't help too much, but I thought it was interesting for it to be in the policy of a major carrier, when it seems to be against ARIN's attempts to curb the proliferation of IP's..

Anyway, another possible reason to reconsider the IP/name based question..