Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 03:27:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Tani Hosokawa <unknown@riverstyx.net>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: patch to force name virtual hosts
In-Reply-To: <382FEF56.68C83883@interpath.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9911150322440.17684-100000@avarice.riverstyx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

I think there's probably been some confusion over syntax differences
between Apache 1.2 and 1.3.  If you do the <VirtualHost 10.2.14.2> as
suggested, it doesn't matter whether the domain correctly resolves to that
IP -- if the server gets a Host: header with the domain specified in the
ServerName directive it will respond correctly, even if the forward lookup
doesn't resolve to that IP.  I'm not sure if 1.2 servers behaved that way.

I recall seeing with a lot of 1.2 servers, <VirtualHost> directives using
the domain name instead of an IP, and the server throwing out VirtualHosts
that didn't have a correctly resolving forward entry.

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Stephen Andrew Misel wrote:

> Hey folks.
> 
> Perhaps a language barrier is making it difficult for us to understand this
> patch.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Maybe?
> 
> -Steve
> 
> Fabien COELHO wrote:
> 
> > > I'm having a hard time understanding why you need a patch. Why not
> > > just do this?:
> > >
> > > <VirtualHost 10.2.14.2>
> > > ServerName www.apache.org
> > > 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 10.2.14.2 is sent to this host, but not especially those
> > with "Host: www.apache.org" header. Or even if it is a name virtual host
> > configuration, the virtual name is "10.2.14.2", not "www.apache.org".
> >
> > 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 ___ coelho@cri.ensmp.fr ___ http://www.cri.ensmp.fr/~coelho
> 

---
tani hosokawa
river styx internet