httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject Re: bug o' the week
Date Sat, 23 Aug 1997 01:32:27 GMT
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> We only support name-based hosts for the main server address, and then it
> doesn't matter which main server address you use, they're all treated the
> same.  So unless A and B are both main server addresses then this isn't a
> valid configuration.
> The fact that it might have done something in 1.2 is a bug.  It's the bug
> whereby and host, not just name-vhosts, can be reached by telnetting to a
> main server address and using Host: foobar. 

Whoa.... since when did this feature turn into a bug? Make no mistake
about it, the ability to use virtual host IP addres for name-based hosts
was an explicit *feature* I put into 1.1 when I wrote the Host: code.

Explanation: Let's say I'm in charge of serving virtual hosts for two
companies, who are entirely seperate, except that they have me do their
web hosting. Imagine that each of them has ten domains they want to
serve. I can't get twenty IP addresses, so I want to use name-based
virtual hosts. But a chunk of the people accessing the site use browsers
that don't support Host:, and I want them to go to the main page of each
of the companies if they try to access one of the other nine servers on
each, where they can find ServerPath-based links to wherever they're

What I want to do is get two IP addresses, give company A's ten names to
one IP, and company B's ten names to the other IP. I want someone going
to "" who doesn't have Host to end up at "", and
someone going to "" to end up at ""

So therefore, I use DNS to set * to one IP address, and * to
the other. I should then be able to use <VirtualHost> on all twenty
addresses, and have it all work.

-- Alexei Kosut <>

View raw message