Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubber Duck
Yes, but I genuinely misunderstood. I mistakenly thought there was a one to one relationship between IPs and domains, but it seems that the system is rather more complicated than that. Mind you there is little indication the current system is in anyway optimal, so who knows what the situation will be in the future, but for IPv4 the answer to how it works is clearly, "Well, not like that!"
|
Dave I knew you misunderstood the relationship between IPs and domains, nevertheless what you tried to say is still completely correct --- the more domains we use, the more IP address we need.
Let me use my real life examples to show why.
I need to set up 3 websites (site1.com, site2.com, site3.com) for my clients in China.
I use name servers ns1.site1.com and ns2.site1.com for site1.com
I use name servers ns1.site2.com and ns2.site2.com for site2.com
I use name servers ns1.site3.com and ns2.site3.com for site3.com
3 sites, I need at least 6 IPs or more. And if I have to build one more site, then I need 8 IPs.... These are just the minimum number of IPs to let my sites be reachable.
The reason I don't use the same name servers for all these sites is simple. I try to make it hard for China to block all my sites in case they don't like any one of my sites.
The argument that we can use the same name servers for 500 parking sites with the same IPs and therefore we don't need more IPs is not convincing and not practical.
Parking sites is a special case, the domain name system is not intended for parking domains.
It would be very unwise to ask IBM, Microsoft, Google... to use the same name servers.
I have hired technical people for my work for many years, I haven't seen any of them brag in front of me that they know what a name server is :-). I hire experts, not newbies.