Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : How I hate ARIN (Need IP Ideas)

[Shannara]

I'm currently running Win2k3 WE @ RackShack. We are given 1 ip, with 7 more "free". The nice catch is, you need to "justify" with "Arin" the reason you need the IPs, and guess what? Lame ARIN does not think Domains are a justification. They "prefer" name-based domains, thus refuse to shell out the IPs. Never had this problem with ServerBeach, interesting..

So, RS turned down my request.. grr.

So I need some excuses (I mean reasons), to grab two more IP addresses. Had more domains to add. Anyways... any help here?

[England]

IRCd, Gameservers, extra DNS servers

Etc.. its not that hard to get IP's from RS, i never found it a problem

[bim]

What do you want to do with your domain that can't be done with the same IP as that of an other domain? I'm interested....

All I can think of is using *.domain, which strangely enough can't even be a host header in Win2003. You should have thought they'd have added that one by now.

[Shannara]

I sent in another ticket, 4 ips for extra dns servers.. I hope this goes through...

[tracphil]

Why would you need extra IP,s to add domains for?

They should not be installed just "to have"

I allow them for SSL and that is about it.

[Tazzman]

6 Nameservers for the same box? I wonder how gullible RS is, keep us posted, please

A more believable excuse would have been that you needed them for SSL. Anonymous FTP would also be a valid reason.

[Shannara]

6? I have one IP now, was requesting 4, of course all for diff domains. Cant use the GameServer reason, due to now knowing their response.. as right now, the only reason I got the server was due to their Sale's assurances that I CAN run whatever I want on the server (except for IRCD ).

However, the some people have been saying there are restrictions on what can be ran, and if that is so, then I would need a complete refund for being lied to by sales. (If that is the case). And yes, I do have a copy of the chat session emailed to me.

I found namebased domains are slower to resolve then IP based domains for some odd strange reason.

None of those reasons listed above will work they denied my request for IPs based on this thread... (aka they provided the url to this thread as reason for rejection).

Real reason for diff ips? besides the domain issue, on my last server, we was subjected to criminals aka hackers who bombarded the server with attacks... actually one ip of the 8 we had. the other sites were not affected.. hrmph! Not to mention the game server that was (ip binded) to listen on one IP, was not affected much (except for a small bit of lag).

*shugs* Looks like im SOL.


On a side note: I do not believe SSL nor Anonymous FTP would work now due to them monitoring this thread and responding that they will not issue any ips to me due to this thread.. real nice.

[ljprevo]

Hope you don't want over 32 domain names on one server, RS will only dish a total of 32 IP's per server.

[Shannara]

Nope, I only have 3, and thats all that is ever planned for this server. The other left over ip, would be for a server. Right now, I suppose I could stick everything on just the one IP I have now, but that would be a huge security issue. (not to mention slow domains if I use that.. name.. based... ).

[belindaj]

(not to mention slow domains if I use that.. name.. based... )

I don't understand this comment - to my knowledge it actually works the opposite - the more IPs mapped to a server the HIGHER the overhead on the server. Name-based hosting in my experience is definately no slower than IP-based.

[Shannara]

huh, I was comparing between serverbeach (ip based) with bug-software (name based). IF that is the case, then name based would be better for JUST the website serving, but at least 1 - 2 IPs would be needed for other servers such as email, ftp. After all, I'm one of those people who would like to not have the entire server/services down due to some criminal attacking one IP

So, these IPs would not be "just to have", they would actually serve a security purpose as having just one IP is just deadly.

[MattF]

I found namebased domains are slower to resolve then IP based domains for some odd strange reason.

Not true whatsoever, DNS resolution is identical for both, the hostname header get parsed whatever the request is IP-based or name-based. We stand behind this by running our company website on a shared IP.

[ericabiz]

Um... that sucks. Here is MFN's policy on IP addresses:

http://www.mfn.com/products/ts_justification.shtm

Basically, their justification is a list of hostnames. (We're currently trying to justify our second block of IP addresses; we justified our first one with an Excel spreadsheet showing hostname->IP mapping.)

I can't imagine why RS would be so stringent, other than the fact that they already have a lot of IP addresses. Then again, I think MFN would have a lot as well.

I'll be glad when IPv6 is the standard and this whole mess is over with...

[Shannara]

Im not blaming RS, Im blaming ARIN. Heck, if ARIN can be this strict about IP policy, I may want to work for them

MattF: Thanks for the clear up, ive been getting alot of PMs concerning that and other IP issues Oh, and bug-software (try fftalk.com for a speed issue) is slower then serverbeach (could try mm.. jerrath.com, but server is down atm).

Anyways, I sent in another request (3rd one today), one for Other (mail/mysql server ip) and one for anonymous ftp for application distro's etc.. citing the security issue with having just one IP addy.

Now that we have that cleared.. im going name-based for my domains... anybody know how to set that up with IIS6 in Win2k3 web edition?

[qm8309]

if some1 requests an IP for "ssl" but later he does not install any ssl at all, will the provider actually notice and revoke the IP?