|
Dirk Vleugels wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 11:48:27AM -0400, Joseph Mack wrote:
> > Dirk Vleugels wrote:
> >
> > > Yes. With LVS-NAT this would be no problem (targeting different
> > > ports on the RS's).
> >
> > >From the other comments in this thread I thought the name-based
> > https needs its own IP. It's been a while since I made a certificate.
> > Are you saying that https needs its own IP:port rather than just IP?
ahem.
I didn't write what I was thinking, but anyhow, you gave the answer
for the question I wanted to ask.
what I wanted to say was: you need a unique IP:port, so unique IP with common
port
will do and common IP with unique port will also do.
you said that both would work
Joe
> Nope. A unique IP is sufficient. Apache has to decide which csr to use
> _before_ seeing the 'Host' header in the HTTP request (SSL handshake
> comes first). A unique port is also sufficient to decide which virtual
> server is meant though (and via NAT easier to manage imho).
>
> Dirk
> --
> This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
--
Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, Lockheed Martin
contractor to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center,
mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA
|
