Not that it bothers me too much, and I figure its most likely just a business decision, but why such a low limit?

Regards,
Mark

We'll i'd tell you to do a search on on this forum for other threads which have discussed this matter, but the word limit would get in the way. Anyways, its been said that because they go through so many servers, getting more IPs gets harder and harder. They also have a problem of running out of ips on subnets. I don't think anyone is going to get a straight answer as to why they are so limited. I had asked at one point and got a rather cold reply along the lines of "its our network and our rules".

Originally posted by thetazzbot
Not that it bothers me too much, and I figure its most likely just a business decision, but why such a low limit?

so you need to buy more servers to get more ip's :)

I personally think 32 is fairly enough for most hosting companies. That also helps reducing the chances of servers moved to another subnet cases. ;)

If I had an IP for every time someone asked this question.... I'd have more than 32. Hah.

Sorry :P

There was talk a while back about the possibility that this policy would be revised, but I haven't heard anything since. Depending on what you are doing with the server 32 can be on the low side.

I guess it makes it easier for them to manage the ip allocation.

Here's my issue, as it relates to this and bulk reselling:

Most resellers want their own nameservers, so we assign 2 IPs. Many of our resellers have 5 small resold domains, or less---and have not grown in a year. It could end up that a dual Xeon would have 60 to 80 domains on it (very small accounts), as there are not enough IPs. How do you, personally, handle this? Get a new server?

It's been a while since I've looked into this, but I'm sure you can register more than one nameserver to the same IP address

eg:

ns1.reseller1.com -> 1.1.1.1
ns2.reseller1.com -> 1.1.1.2

ns1.reseller2.com -> 1.1.1.1
ns2.reseller2.com -> 1.1.1.2

They can then register domain names using their own name servers, and in the WHOIS it shows up their proper name server title, but they are infact using all the same IPs.

Thanks, Robin. The reason we haven't been sharing the IPs for nameservers is that there use to be an issue with that. I guess that has been sorted out.

The answer is simply that they have very small subnets (this is, also, why they tend to fill up; often if you need additional IPs they have to re-locate your server to a new subnet).

This is actually good, though. DOS attacks tend to affect a less number of servers. Also, many places that use IPs don't truly need them. For example, as posted above, many people use unique ips because they think they are necessary to have reseller nameservers... but it isn't.

Originally posted by amusive.com
Also, many places that use IPs don't truly need them. For example, as posted above, many people use unique ips because they think they are necessary to have reseller nameservers... but it isn't.

Search engines loves unique IP numbers

Originally posted by clear
Search engines loves unique IP numbers

No not really. Search engines care about the content the most. Having a domain name is also preferable for some search engines but unique IPs certainly is not something that will affect your search engine standing.

Originally posted by nacs
No not really. Search engines care about the content the most. Having a domain name is also preferable for some search engines but unique IPs certainly is not something that will affect your search engine standing.

There are a few reasons this is not true. The main reason is the chance of having your site blocked by a search engine. The reason is simple. If you are sharing an IP number with 30 to 50 other web sites, you are trusting them not to over submit or spam the search engine. If a search engines blocks an IP number all the sites that are sharing that IP number are blocked. If you have your own unique IP number, you do not have this problem.

Originally posted by clear
There are a few reasons this is not true. The main reason is the chance of having your site blocked by a search engine. The reason is simple. If you are sharing an IP number with 30 to 50 other web sites, you are trusting them not to over submit or spam the search engine. If a search engines blocks an IP number all the sites that are sharing that IP number are blocked. If you have your own unique IP number, you do not have this problem.

Search engines block by domain name, not IP, in case of abuse. Very rarely would any even consider banning by IPs as they are well aware how virtual hosting works (many hosts 1 IP).

nacs is correct. Someone from google has even posted about this. IPs do not matter with search engines.

Originally posted by robinbalen
It's been a while since I've looked into this, but I'm sure you can register more than one nameserver to the same IP address

eg:

ns1.reseller1.com -> 1.1.1.1
ns2.reseller1.com -> 1.1.1.2

ns1.reseller2.com -> 1.1.1.1
ns2.reseller2.com -> 1.1.1.2

They can then register domain names using their own name servers, and in the WHOIS it shows up their proper name server title, but they are infact using all the same IPs.

And how would you work out rdns with this method?

Originally posted by Haze
And how would you work out rdns with this method?


you don't, no rDNS :rolleyes:

it isnt really necessary...

Just don't set an rDNS. As long as mail doesn't originate from that IP (which, I believe, it wouldn't anyway typically) it doesn't matter.

We have purposely not taken on resellers for the past year (business model), so bear with me. :) At the Cpanel forums, people use to have horror stories regarding the issue of sharing IPs with more than one set of nameservers. Sharing an IP between a nameserver and accounts was fine, but not sharing between different sets of nameservers. Now, it seems, it is okay.

So, using this model, a reseller would add accounts using the server IP, instead of an individual IP assigned to that reseller, with which he would sign up all his accounts? In other words, a reseller does not have one IP--different from the other resellers--which all his accounts share, but would use the server IP?

Originally posted by Perfecthost
Here's my issue, as it relates to this and bulk reselling:

Most resellers want their own nameservers, so we assign 2 IPs. Many of our resellers have 5 small resold domains, or less---and have not grown in a year. It could end up that a dual Xeon would have 60 to 80 domains on it (very small accounts), as there are not enough IPs. How do you, personally, handle this? Get a new server?

That is terribly inefficient. Large hosting companies host thousands of websites on a single box. Company I work for puts 20k on a single box for parking.

On windows machines, its a different story. GIven that most name based sites generate very little traffic translating to low load, a dual xeon can support much more than what you described.

Yeah, I know; hence, my questions about the nameservers. I don't want to waste a dual Xeon by not putting it to maximum use. :) It seems that it can be worked around.

I had big problems with sharing ips on Nameservers as well. It kicked out the old name of the nameserver... so i ended up with all the sites on that nameserver being down.

As a large hosting provider here is our take on IP's. There is a cost associated with IP's, even though it is small there is still a cost involved. We don't mind giving a reseller access to as many IP's as he/she needs. However we are not going to give them the key to the IP vault from the begining.

We issue them as - needed. This prevents resellers from having a stock pile of IP's that they are either not using or from not using them in the manner they are supposed to. I am not going to purchase 1000 IP's an give them to a reseller that is only using 200. That does not make good business sense.

At the same time I will never lose a resellers business because he wants more IP's. DON"T FREAK about the number of IP's they are advertising, just ASK for some more.

I would not dream of handing out shared Ips for our clients personalised nameservers. :eek: Our NAC servers just come standard with 128 Ips. :)

I'm a newbie,

Does it mean that you can host only 32 different sites on that server?

No, it doesn't.

Originally posted by Cult
I'm a newbie,

Does it mean that you can host only 32 different sites on that server?
It means you can only have 32 secure sites (https://secure.domain.com) for credit card entry, etc.

It also means that if you host resellers (who then resell hosting accounts to others) and each reseller wants their own pair of nameservers (ns1.theirdomain.com and ns2.theirdomain.com) and they want proper RDS entries for them that you can only have around a dozen resellers per server. (taking into account your own nameservers and a couple secure sites of your own, etc.). But that's probably OK, esp for their non-xeon servers anyway.

In reality it's the unavailability of IP's on a given subnet that will get you before the 32-IP limit. No one likes to move a server and change all it's existing IP's taking all existing sites offline just to add a few more IP's. It's usually easier to just get a new additional server.