[RndTbl] weird apache hit

[Scott Toderash]

I'm hosting hundreds of websites using SNI and nobody ever complains. It 
has definitely been mainstream for years now.



On 2020-02-21 13:21, Adam Thompson wrote:
> On 2020-02-21 12:42, Trevor Cordes wrote:
>> On 2020-02-21 athompso at athompso.net wrote:
>>> Pretty sure this wouldn't have happened with nginx :-D.
>> 
>> Hahaha.  Maybe!
>> 
>>> Seriously, why not just make the TLS Virthost *:443 to both cover
>>> this scenario _and_ enable SNI simultaneously?  Is there any harm in
>>> people using the other IP address? -Adam
>> 
>> Well, we were and will in the future use the 2nd/3rd IP addresses in
>> apache again.  It's just at the moment we are not.  If I fix it that
>> way now, then I enable the 2nd IP again in the future, I'll still have
>> the same bug problem on the 3rd IP.
>> 
>> As for SNI... what is everyone's opinion of that?  Is it "here" now in
>> the sense that 99.999% of end-user browsers will support it?  Put
>> another way, does FB and google require SNI support to hit their 
>> sites?
>> On our production server we don't want to lock out any user just
>> because they don't happen to support SNI.  (Yes, TLS limitations will
>> probably bite people before SNI limitations...)
> 
> SNI went mainstream (i.e. >90% client support) several years ago, and
> yeah, I guess we're probably at the >>99% mark by now?  Literally XP
> SP3 w/IE7 is the last thing I know of that doesn't support SNI.  Or
> Android 2.1, and I don't think any of those devices are still alive.
> 
> -Adam
> _______________________________________________
> Roundtable mailing list
> Roundtable at muug.ca
> https://muug.ca/mailman/listinfo/roundtable