4 ms·

The generally lacking support of SNI is such a shame. Especially when you consider that there are currently two forces in move that clearly work against each o

by pilif 15y ago

The generally lacking support of SNI is such a shame. Especially when you consider that there are currently two forces in move that clearly work against each other: On one end you have cool stuff like SPDY and more and more pervasive proxies altering HTTP data on the fly which makes SSL more and more interesting. On the other hand, we are running out of IPv4 addresses, making it harder and harder to use one address per virtual host. So even though we are much more motivated to use SSL these days, the growing difficulty of acquiring IP addresses makes it harder and harder.

zokier 15y ago
You are conveniently ignoring IPv6 which IE on XP actually supports. Maybe instead of buggering MS to add features to a dead OS we should be buggering ISPs to get on the IPv6 train.
- pilif 15y ago
  I was't buggering MS either. I was just stating the state of affairs (as other comments state, Android is equally broken). I can't tell you what's more likely: To get both XP and Android fixed or to get wide-spread IPv6 deployment. I have a feeling though that it's probably more likely that we see XP dead and Android fixed than we are going to see the current bulk of XP users (Corporations with crazy firewalls and users of pirated XP in Asia) having IPv6 connectivity. I would love to be proven wrong though as I see IPv4 scarcity to be a much bigger threat to a free internet than anything else.
  - zokier 15y ago
    >I was't buggering MS either. I was just stating the state of affairs (as other comments state, Android is equally broken). It wasn't my intention to pick you out specifically. I aimed that comment to the whole community. >I can't tell you what's more likely: To get both XP and Android fixed or to get wide-spread IPv6 deployment. I think that latter is far more likely. While IPv6 adoption has been relatively slow so far, still there has been constantly some progression. So I feel that there is fair chance for wide-spread IPv6 eventually. On the other hand, I'm almost certain that MS will not add SNI to XP ever.

by pilif 15y ago

zokier 15y ago

You are conveniently ignoring IPv6 which IE on XP actually supports. Maybe instead of buggering MS to add features to a dead OS we should be buggering ISPs to get on the IPv6 train.

pilif 15y ago
I was't buggering MS either. I was just stating the state of affairs (as other comments state, Android is equally broken). I can't tell you what's more likely: To get both XP and Android fixed or to get wide-spread IPv6 deployment. I have a feeling though that it's probably more likely that we see XP dead and Android fixed than we are going to see the current bulk of XP users (Corporations with crazy firewalls and users of pirated XP in Asia) having IPv6 connectivity. I would love to be proven wrong though as I see IPv4 scarcity to be a much bigger threat to a free internet than anything else.
- zokier 15y ago
  >I was't buggering MS either. I was just stating the state of affairs (as other comments state, Android is equally broken). It wasn't my intention to pick you out specifically. I aimed that comment to the whole community. >I can't tell you what's more likely: To get both XP and Android fixed or to get wide-spread IPv6 deployment. I think that latter is far more likely. While IPv6 adoption has been relatively slow so far, still there has been constantly some progression. So I feel that there is fair chance for wide-spread IPv6 eventually. On the other hand, I'm almost certain that MS will not add SNI to XP ever.