IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

"Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org> Wed, 02 April 2003 11:25 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03733; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 06:25:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 190gSt-0000HN-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 06:31:35 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 190gOM-0000DH-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 06:26:54 -0500
Received: from purgatory.unfix.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03418 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 06:10:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by purgatory.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1268F16; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:12:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from limbo (limbo.unfix.org [10.100.13.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by purgatory.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D4E89B2; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:12:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: 'Michael Richardson' <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 13:13:31 +0200
Organization: Unfix
Message-ID: <002901c2f908$e5d1ed30$210d640a@unfix.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
In-Reply-To: <200304020332.h323WWFv012138@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS @ purgatory.unfix.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael Richardson wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> 
> >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu> writes:
>     Bill> 	Are the apps for which IPv6 is enabled that -can not-
>     Bill> 	use address literals?  If so, then Steve is wrong and 
> 
>   yes.
>   Both IPv4 and IPv6 web browsers behave differently if you do,
> for instance:
>     http://192.139.46.2/
> vs  http://www.sandelman.ca/
> 
>   A different Host: header is sent, and therefore one gets a 
> different 
> (virtual) web site.

Configure your server better than :) (eg use _default_ )
HTTP goes by name, not by IP. Also there is a RFC which
says to never use IPv6 IP's in URL's... That's also why
IE in XP doesn't support it. "Host" is now an integral
part of HTTP/1.1 and one can't even do without it anymore.

> Of course, we have no need of this in IPv6, since
> 2^64 web sites per LAN is plenty, but the protocol still 
> exists to do it.
>   Can we change this in IPv6? Maybe.

I don't think many hosters will like configuring 2^64 addresses
on their webservers, even though it is possible.

One neat thing about this is HTTPS though, as there are now enough
addresses for that. But fortunatly there are propositions for
enabling the "Host" header for different SSL sites even while
using the same IP (v4+v6 ofcourse).

Greets,
 Jeroen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email