5 ms·
Since we're here anyway: if we would just change web browsers to connect to a default port number obtained via DNS instead of always using 80/443 by default, th
by apenwarr 9y ago
Since we're here anyway: if we would just change web browsers to connect to a default port number obtained via DNS instead of always using 80/443 by default, then we could offer web servers through NAT gateways (by hosting up to 65535 web servers on a single IPv4 address). We'd need some way to tell the NAT we want to expose a port (some variant of uPnP or some less-dumb protocol), but other than that, it would be easy. And then we'd have effectively 65535x as many IPv4 addresses, which would be enough for everyone, permanently, and IPv6 wouldn't be needed.
- adamtulinius 9y agoYou just described how reverse proxies work, just by using ports instead of the host-header to choose the correct backend.
- colechristensen 9y agoWhat? This isn't necessary at all. HTTP includes the requested hostname in the request so you can have as many DNS names as you want point to a single IP. No NAT or other magic necessary. The entire HTTP Internet could be hosted on a single IP.
- rictic 9y agoTrue but if the sites were served by different processes then there would have to be a trusted reverse proxy process to dispatch.