You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Wilfredo Sanchez <ws...@apple.com> on 1998/10/23 02:17:22 UTC
Fully qualified names
Apache currently will refuse to start up if it can't determine the fully qualified
hostname for the local host unless you specify ServerName. This makes a
lot of sense when you are on the Internet, since a non-qualified name sent
to a browser in a different domain would prove problematic.
But, if you have a local LAN--say, in a classroom--then there may be no
domain to speficy, and the "unqualified" name is the correct thing. It would
be nice if Apache users didn't have to hard-code a name in the the config
file in this case, where they may be no DNS in use.
What do people think about that? I'd like to remove this failure case, but I
imagine that there may be some disagreement here.
-Fred
---
Wilfredo Sanchez | wsanchez@apple.com | 408.974-5174
Apple Computer, Inc., 1 Infinite Loop 302.4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
(Mac OS X) Core Operating Systems Group | BSD
Re: Fully qualified names
Posted by Supra Genius <su...@curasoft.com>.
hi,
i have been running apache 1.3x on an
isolated sub-net of windows nt machines
using the 'offically reserved' 10.x.x.x
ip numbers... i have each machine setup
as <summachine>.my_made_up.dom with ips
of 10.10.10.x ...
winnt does have a host file buried in
the system32/drivers/etc directory that
it will use for name resolution... fill
it in as you would an '/etc/hosts' file
complete with # comments...
i suspect this will work on other os'
as well but have not tried it...
see ya |} zed
--
Re: Fully qualified names
Posted by Martin Kraemer <ma...@mch.sni.de>.
On our company's intranet, only about half (or less) of the hosts do
actually have a registered DNS address (which makes sense, too, since
they couldn't connect to the internet directly anyway, and they're not
running a real OS which is capable of receiving mail addressed to
their host ;-).
Therefore I figure many intranets (like in schools) have the same
problem: the intranet hosts want to provide information, even though
they don't have a DNS address.
The solution I've been proposing to my "internal apache customers"
was to use an IP address in dotted quad notation, because that
probably is what these servers must be addressed like anyway (non NIS-
based name resolution).
It serves well enough for redirections, though it's ugly in
situations where your local (client) configuration was able to
address the server by a (locally known only) readable name.
But that's just the problem: how can the server know whether the clients
know it by a readable name?
Would a configuration like
ServerName 123.45.67.89
UseCanonicalName Off
help Apache to use the same name in redirections as the client was
using in the request?
Should "Make install" use the dotted-quad address if it finds no
DNS name by reverse lookup?
Martin
On Fri, Oct 23, 1998 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
> | I think that making people specify a ServerName in the odd case where
> | there is no qualified domain name is a better alternative than having
> | person after person complain that redirects don't work right.
>
> Yeah. My problem is that it's not an odd case; we hope to sell machines
> to schools--we like schools--so the teacher can set up apache right quick
> and get a classroom going with a web server for the kids to bang on. It's
> not all that common, perhaps to use web servers on isolated nets, but we
> see some uses of that coming our way.
>
> Would a compile-time option be OK?
>
> I think that on my platform, I can make the default search order for lookups
> to do DNS first, then NetInfo and whatever else, for which Internet servers,
> which always (almost always?) use DNS, Apache will find the FQDN.
--
<Ma...@Mch.SNI.De> | Siemens Information and
Phone: +49-89-636-46021 | Communication Products
FAX: +49-89-636-47816 | 81730 Munich, Germany
Re: Fully qualified names
Posted by Wilfredo Sanchez <ws...@apple.com>.
| I think that making people specify a ServerName in the odd case where
| there is no qualified domain name is a better alternative than having
| person after person complain that redirects don't work right.
Yeah. My problem is that it's not an odd case; we hope to sell machines
to schools--we like schools--so the teacher can set up apache right quick
and get a classroom going with a web server for the kids to bang on. It's
not all that common, perhaps to use web servers on isolated nets, but we
see some uses of that coming our way.
Would a compile-time option be OK?
I think that on my platform, I can make the default search order for lookups
to do DNS first, then NetInfo and whatever else, for which Internet servers,
which always (almost always?) use DNS, Apache will find the FQDN.
-Fred
---
Wilfredo Sanchez | wsanchez@apple.com | 408.974-5174
Apple Computer, Inc., 1 Infinite Loop 302.4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
(Mac OS X) Core Operating Systems Group | BSD
Re: Fully qualified names
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>.
On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
> Apache currently will refuse to start up if it can't determine the fully qualified
> hostname for the local host unless you specify ServerName. This makes a
> lot of sense when you are on the Internet, since a non-qualified name sent
> to a browser in a different domain would prove problematic.
>
> But, if you have a local LAN--say, in a classroom--then there may be no
> domain to speficy, and the "unqualified" name is the correct thing. It would
> be nice if Apache users didn't have to hard-code a name in the the config
> file in this case, where they may be no DNS in use.
>
> What do people think about that? I'd like to remove this failure case, but I
> imagine that there may be some disagreement here.
The problem is that accepting such a thing would would really break many
Internet systems where all Apache can figure out is an unqualified host
name, and there are a lot of such systems around.
I think that making people specify a ServerName in the odd case where
there is no qualified domain name is a better alternative than having
person after person complain that redirects don't work right.