5 ms·
HTTP and HTTPS are served on different ports so using a single IP for both typically isn't an issue. The issue here is that HTTP allows you to host multiple sit
by zaphoyd 14y ago
HTTP and HTTPS are served on different ports so using a single IP for both typically isn't an issue. The issue here is that HTTP allows you to host multiple sites from one IP address, whereas HTTPS can only deliver a single certificate per IP address. This requires 1 IP per SSLed hostname. SNI lets you send multiple certificates on one IP, but client support isn't good enough yet. Multi-name certificates work better but can be more expensive.
- klapinat0r 14y ago> but client support isn't good enough yet. I'm aware of SNI (and rely on it myself), but haven't found it to be an issue yet. As far as I can see it's IE < 7 and XP. How big can that market really be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Browsers_with_support_for_TLS_server_name_indication.5B5.5D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication#Browsers... If it's the "some corporations require IE6" argument, then it sounds like it's a business, and should be able to charge for the extra IP needed. But maybe I'm just horribly modern.
- X-Istence 14y agoAnything using Microsoft's built-in crypto support, will still not work, I have a .NET based application I am supporting on Windows XP which still doesn't support SNI. Also, my sites that I would want to enable would be public sites ... ones that I don't charge for since they are mostly public sites (but I still want to protect credentials for people posting comments and the like). So charging for an extra IP is simply not an option.