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

["Jeroen Massar" <jeroen at unfix.org>]

Michael Richardson wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> 
> >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Manning <bmanning at 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