<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"">Wow, it's quite an
extreme position to say an SSL is
not a valid reason for an IP address!<br>
Deploying SNI is a customer support nightmare, it's broken
(sometimes randomly) on many platforms
that claim to support it and non-existent for anyone using IE
on XP (and there
are a lot of them!)<br>
<br>
If SNI actually worked as advertised we could survive on the
IP addresses we
have until IPv6 is widely deployed. Sadly there will come a
time soon where we will either have to start<br>
turning customers away or plunging into the expensive crevasse
that is the IP
trading market!<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Martin<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
On 1/03/2013 7:46 PM, Jared Hirst wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:4038385828443449971@unknownmsgid" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The fact people can now get a /22 with minimal justification and cost
is my argument, it's now making it easy to source and hold on to for
selling and making a profit for later. I agree there are some people
that really do need them and I FULLY support them IF they have a REAL
justification. (In fact i have helped many customers of mine move off
my space to their own allocation) A justification of 'we have ssl's'
is not longer valid in my opinion, you can use SNI or something
similar to overcome the need for a IP for a SSL, however people still
seem to use this excuse to gain IP space, I see it everyday in
hosting.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>