# Re: DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?

Rob Raisch (raisch@internet.com)
Fri, 10 Feb 1995 13:43:20 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Rob Raisch: "Re: DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?"
- Previous message: Markus Stumpf: "Re: DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?"
- Maybe in reply to: Dan Connolly: "DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?"
- Next in thread: Rob Raisch: "Re: DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?"

    Message-Id: <199502101841.AA12909@ahhh.internet.com>

    From: "Rob Raisch" <raisch@internet.com>

    To: uri@bunyip.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, connolly@hal.com (Dan Connolly)

    Date:          Fri, 10 Feb 1995 13:43:20 -0500

    Subject:       Re: DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?

There are no HTTP servers that support multiple domain names per
machine because they cannot under the current protocols. (There are
some versions of Unix which will support multiple peer IP addresses
per host, but this is not the same thing.)

Outside of the DNS protocols, there are no domain names. When a TCP
connection is made to a particular host, the only designators
available are the numeric IP and port addresses.

There are many reasons why the full URL needs to be provided when an
HTTP request is made. I have suggested a number and this is one.
Unfortunately, I don't see this happening easily -- due to the
installed base.

And if you really want to see some fur fly, suggest that DNS needs
to be modified. <chuckle> I've learned MY lesson on that score, I
can tell you. Doesn't matter if the suggestion has merit. The DNS
is considered -- by its authors and maintainers -- to be the most
important and fragile of all Internet technologies. I'd rather
suggest modifications to any established world religion.

</rr>

- Next message: Rob Raisch: "Re: DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?"
- Previous message: Markus Stumpf: "Re: DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?"
- Maybe in reply to: Dan Connolly: "DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?"
- Next in thread: Rob Raisch: "Re: DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?"