| reply to Chubbysumo
Re: DNS better be flawless... said by Chubbysumo:said by DataRiker:said by fegul:The only reason I'm hesitant is that I'm old school and like being able to remember some IPv4 addresses as well as domain names just in case. If DNS goes down in an IPv6 environment...uh-oh. You remember the actual ip address? Wow...just wow. (I'm actually impressed) I do this with my favorite sites. I actually have them saved in my favorite places at ip addresses so i can skip the dns lookup. this is as a just in case my ISPs dns servers dont work, and my secondary openDNS doesnt work either(rare). It is also faster, because you do skip that dns lookup time, which results in a faster loading page. This is very bad practice. Here is why:
Many servers serve many domain names. Which, the web server could care less about 12.34.56.78, the webserver reads the hostname that gets sent in the HTTP request (RFC 2616). So, if you goto »12.34.56.78 you will probably get a 404 or "under construction" page. Although, it appears you don't run into that problem, it is bad practice regardless.
By saying that the reason why you navigate straight to the IP because you don't trust your ISPs DNS server's, is a fallacious statement. If you were really that concerned, then you should setup your own recursive DNS server on your local network. A recursive DNS server should never touch your ISP's, unless your ISP is hijacking DNS requests. DNS plays a bigger role in the internet than just resolving A records. |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| "Many servers serve many domain names."
VERY good point!
For some things, however, it still can't hurt to 'know' a few that are direct... it seems like that's what Chubbysumo might've been talking about, but it still doesn't negate your most astute point(s). |
|
 tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | not to mention that locking into an ip address can give you outdated information on frequently updated websites if there is a server farm, or can simply be down while going to the domain name wouldn't give you that issue. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
HTTPS/SSL REQUIRES a unique IP for each website. Host tag is useless. |
|
|
|
MOS_STPPremium
join:2007-02-08
New York, NY | It is possible to have multiple SSL sites on the same IP with wildcard SSL certs. |
|
| reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:This is very bad practice. Here is why: Many servers serve many domain names. Which, the web server could care less about 12.34.56.78, the webserver reads the hostname that gets sent in the HTTP request (RFC 2616). So, if you goto » 12.34.56.78 you will probably get a 404 or "under construction" page. Although, it appears you don't run into that problem, it is bad practice regardless. By saying that the reason why you navigate straight to the IP because you don't trust your ISPs DNS server's, is a fallacious statement. If you were really that concerned, then you should setup your own recursive DNS server on your local network. A recursive DNS server should never touch your ISP's, unless your ISP is hijacking DNS requests. DNS plays a bigger role in the internet than just resolving A records. bingo  my host is like this, if you go to the ip associated with my website all youl find is
"error id: "bad_httpd_conf"" |
|
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:HTTPS/SSL REQUIRES a unique IP for each website. Host tag is useless. This is an incorrect assumption. I actually just did a paper/talk on SSL/TLS. You can use the same IP for multiple SSL certificates, however, the server and browser must support SNI (RFC 4366). More info here |
|
| reply to MOS_STP
said by MOS_STP:It is possible to have multiple SSL sites on the same IP with wildcard SSL certs. Or SNI, as I mention in my post: »Re: DNS better be flawless... |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
If he's got a site he likes enough to save the IP address for, it's probably a popular enough website that shared hosting isn't going to cut it.
Of course, if it's really popular then a single IP address isn't going to cut it either, and they might change the DNS to point to a different IP and re-purpose the other one, or have it out of date or something.
But he's not hurting anyone or being hurt by using an IP address |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
Most Windows XP browsers dont yet, who knows if MS will backport SNI ever. |
|
| said by patcat88:Most Windows XP browsers dont yet, who knows if MS will backport SNI ever. I am not sure of that, according to »www.google.com/support/forum/p/C···4e&hl=en it does work in Firefox in XP but not Chrome. That post was made in early 2009 so I would imagine that the "bug" was fixed as it seemed to affect all browsers using webkit. Of course, as the facts stand now, the majority of browsers don't support it in XP, like you said.
Which, of course, you should know why that is. But, I have an alternative that I will be making available. |
|
