I'm not planning on a business site, or anything that complex, but what are the benefits of a static IP for most users?

Generally needed for:

Aliased nameservers
Secure Certs.
Anon FTP

-but other than that... not really needed. People like it more than anything. The host should be able to give you access to your site and make it so you can see the site, etc. without a static IP.

Originally posted by Pablo
I'm not planning on a business site, or anything that complex, but what are the benefits of a static IP for most users?

One of the nice benefits is that you aren't reliant on DNS to upload files to or access your site. So, you can start working on your site right away, without having to wait for the worldwide DNS servers to catch up with a hosting change.

Take care,

Brian

And if nameservers go down you can replace your IP with your domain name in e-mail, contol panel login etc...

Originally posted by bteeter


One of the nice benefits is that you aren't reliant on DNS to upload files to or access your site. So, you can start working on your site right away, without having to wait for the worldwide DNS servers to catch up with a hosting change.

Take care,

Brian

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that even with a shared IP address you do not have to rely on DNS... With a dedicated IP address you would be able to access your site like http://123.456.789.000.

Using a shared IP, you would still be able to access your site- the only difference is that your URL would look like this: http://123.456.789.000/~username/. It shouldn't affect whether you're able to upload via FTP or access your site at all.

For the vast majority of web sites, it will not matter whether you use a shared IP or dedicated IP. You _should_ be able to access your web site either way, with or without a domain name. The only thing I would add to the list Chicken gave is web sites using a 3rd party DNS system. In my experience, for a seamless transition these generally require you to have your own IP.

I think, people for the most part want dedicated IP's because they hear about them, not because they need them. They feel good about having something they can call their own :)

Thanks for the information...gives me a little more to think about, but I don't think that would be a deal maker/breaker for me personally.

Originally posted by Brian Farkas


Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that even with a shared IP address you do not have to rely on DNS... With a dedicated IP address you would be able to access your site like http://123.456.789.000.

Using a shared IP, you would still be able to access your site- the only difference is that your URL would look like this: http://123.456.789.000/~username/. It shouldn't affect whether you're able to upload via FTP or access your site at all.

For the vast majority of web sites, it will not matter whether you use a shared IP or dedicated IP. You _should_ be able to access your web site either way, with or without a domain name. The only thing I would add to the list Chicken gave is web sites using a 3rd party DNS system. In my experience, for a seamless transition these generally require you to have your own IP.

This isn't always true. For instance on (gasp) Cobalt Raq servers, user's docroots isn't under a public_html in their user space. I've been on other servers like this as well. Certainly, it probably should be, and it is on Cpanel sustems but it isn't always.

So, in those cases a static IP address is nice. Certainly, you don't always need it, but it is a nice thing to have. (As opposed to a must or should have.)

Take care,

Brian

I agree with Wazeh. However, some search engines do require a static IP to index you correctly. In some cases they are also needed if you want more then one FTP account for the same virtual account.

Name based hosting/virtual IP works fine for about 90% of all cases.

yep, but most good shared hosts will give you multiple ftp accounts

It seems like there is a lot of misconception about shared vs. dedicated IPs, and I think that wazeh and the others here are right when they say that users "want" a dedicated IP because they think they will function better. I just did a search on the subject now, and it looks like some hosting sites are just aiding to the confusion (example: http://www.altahost.com/help/dedicated_ip_vs.htm)

Of course, there are going to be hosts that offer dedicated IPs that will say it's absolutely necessary to have one, and that shared IPs will hurt your site (see above). There will be hosts who offer shared IP hosting who will say there are no (or very few) disadvantages (example: http://support.rackspace.com/cgi-bin/rstechweb/solution?11=991219-0085&130=945710544&14=&2715=&15=&2716=&57=search&58=&25=6&3=name%20based%20hosting). I find this article kind of funny- in it they say that "But until recently, some search engines still needed to see a web site with it's own dedicated IP address to be able to "see" all of your content, but that has all been fixed now--and this scenario is no longer the case. " Then take a look at their sales FAQ, which is referenced in that document: *Some search engines do not support name based sites.

In any event, the truth is probably somewhere in between. Sure, if you're given a choice with all things being equal, a dedicated IP is nice to have... but not always completely necessary.