| |||||||||||||
another drawbackanother drawbackPosted Jan 3, 2008 12:10 UTC (Thu) by redenisc (guest, #43086)In reply to: another drawback by TRS-80 Parent article: The future of unencrypted web traffic
Browsers support for SNI is improving indeed. What about server support though. OpenSSL supports SNI as of 0.9.9 which is not released at the time of writing. Hence Apache mod_ssl does not support SNI, hence most deployed HTTP servers will not support SNI for the next few years.
(Log in to post comments)
another drawback Posted Jan 3, 2008 13:31 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] Bulk hosting is the main application though, and the people doing bulk hosting already have some guy with a beard and a hand-modified version of Perl working for them so this isn't so scary. A lot of them still run Linux 2.4, have their own CVS tree for Apache, that sort of thing. This is the right way round to deploy stuff anyway, you only need one server to provide the service, but you need as many user agents as possible to support it, or it's useless. If in 2008 just one company, say Dreamhost, offer this as a service, but 95% of people with web browsers have a new enough one that it supports SNI, then you've got something useful. The opposite way around would be completely worthless.
another drawback Posted Jan 3, 2008 13:55 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] FYI, SNI was backported to OpenSSL 0.9.8g, and there is a patch in Apache's bug tracking system which works fine in my informal tests (which included backporting OpenSSL 0.9.8g to the current stable release of Debian, and rebuilding Apache on same--both tasks were nice and easy). :)
|
|||||||||||||