I've read the man pages on this, and as you know I try my best help out people
on the newsgroup.
I'd really appreciate anyone's views on why name based virtual hosts may be a
bad thing ?
2. You can't use them with SSL.
In general, I know of no reason to use IP virtual hosts unless you
They're not. If you've found a reference that says they're a problem, lookQuote:
> I'd really appreciate anyone's views on why name based virtual hosts may be a
> bad thing ?
For example, the Apache documentation on the subject is over three years
old. In early 1997, there may indeed have been a legacy issue of browser
Just as a data point, it's my recollection that NCSA Win Mosaic 3Quote:> > I'd really appreciate anyone's views on why name based virtual hosts may be a
> > bad thing ?
> 1. Very old browsers don't support them. (Sorry, I can't define "very
> old" exactly.)
This is a question those of you supporting ISP/CSP environments.
In reading documentation on the Web and the Apache book, it seems that
name-bases virtual host are the recommended way to manage VH, over
IP-based VH for obvious reasons. The only real reason to use IP-based VH
is for backward compatibility with older clients not supporting HTTP
1.1. Even this can be worked around using the ServerPath directive.
In practice, are Name-base VH used more often than IP-based? Are people
really not managing VH using the IP based method anymore? Phasing it