You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Assuming Let'sEncrypt is enabled, and onDemand=true...
A request comes for domain.com - an automatic SSL Certificate is requested.
A request comes for foo.domain.com - an automatic SSL certificate is requested. :(
What would be really useful, is the following workflow:
A request comes for domain.com - an automatic SSL Certificate is requested.
A request comes for foo.domain.com - Traefik realizes that it already has a Cert for domain.com, thus it re-issues that same cert and adds the SAN foo.domain.com.
This would drastically decrease certificate issues, thus lowering the chance of someone trying to spin up several domains (such as myself) of reaching their Let'sEncrypt Rate Limit.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This would drastically decrease certificate issues, thus lowering the chance of someone trying to spin up several domains (such as myself) of reaching their Let'sEncrypt Rate Limit.
I'm not sure Letsencrypt works that way when I look at their policy:
To make sure you can always renew your certificates when you need to, we have a Renewal Exemption to the Certificates per Registered Domain limit. Even if you’ve hit the limit for the week, you can still issue new certificates that count as renewals. An issuance request counts as a renewal if it contains the exact same set of hostnames as a previously issued certificate.
In other words, although this is a nice idea in princible, it won't change anything regarding reaching rate limits.
Assuming Let'sEncrypt is enabled, and
onDemand=true
...What would be really useful, is the following workflow:
This would drastically decrease certificate issues, thus lowering the chance of someone trying to spin up several domains (such as myself) of reaching their Let'sEncrypt Rate Limit.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: