httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Andrew Misel <>
Subject Re: patch to force name virtual hosts
Date Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:32:38 GMT
Hey folks.

Perhaps a language barrier is making it difficult for us to understand this

I looked the code over the day it was posted and think Fabien is trying to
provide NameVirtual support for domains which may or may not resolve to the
local IP.

In other words, let's make believe I'm a hosting provider.  You sign up for a
website at my company and transfer a domain or move an existing one.  There's
that brief period of time where you'd have to access your site with just the
IP (before DNS moves over).  If I'm providing HTTP/1.1 style hosting, you
wouldn't be able to access your site until your domain was registered or
pointing to my Virtual IP.

With Fabien's patch, it looks like the end-user can specify the NameVirtual IP
address *and* his domain, thus allowing 1.1 style hosting accounts to be
accessed before their domain resolves to that IP.



Fabien COELHO wrote:

> > I'm having a hard time understanding why you need a patch. Why not
> > just do this?:
> >
> > <VirtualHost>
> > ServerName
> > DocumentRoot /path/to/local/root/of/apache/if/any
> > ...
> > </VirtualHost>
> Maybe a I missed something, but:
> I don't think that doing this would make the name virtual host mecanism
> chose this virtual host configuration. It's a ip-based virtual host, that
> is any request on is sent to this host, but not especially those
> with "Host:" header. Or even if it is a name virtual host
> configuration, the virtual name is "", not "".
> ServerName is just used for the server output, e.g. redirects, not for
> chosing a virtual host. If you want a name virtual host, the current
> directive only allows virtual hosts the name of which resolves to a local
> ip interface.
> --
> Fabien Coelho ___ ___

View raw message