Your IP Addresses Allocation Stinks!

I have also found Linode's IP allocation policies to be a bit draconian. It doesn't really matter to me personally because I do not have need for more IPs, but when you look at completely reputable providers like WiredTree giving out 4 IPs per VPS standard, it does seem odd that Linode operates like this. I think Linode used to allow you to add one additional IP per Linode without justification - that was nice.

I'm not saying it's completely outrageous and I can see an argument that Linode has smaller instances and so can't really afford to just allow multiple IPs by default for every VPS - someone could load up on 512s with 2-3 IPs each and hog a bunch of IP space.

All the same, it would be easy to have a graduated policy where additional IPs on 512 - 1024 instances need justification always and 1536 - 4096 instances can get one additional IP with no problem, etc. Something like that.

@empoweringmedia:

In order to get a dedicated IP address, I must jump through hoops every single time!! I get it. It must be for SSL only.

Does Linode lack the IP space? I've NEVER had as many issues with getting dedicated IP addresses as I had with Linode. Yes I get there is a shortage of IP addresses, but it isn't as bad as Linode makes it sounds like. Your policies border on the absurd!

As much as I like your service overall, if this continues to be an issue I will create instances with other cloud providers and will not recommend Linode for anyone who needs SSL or multiple IP addresses.
No, it's not absurd, it's ARIN rules.

@OverlordQ:

No, it's not absurd, it's ARIN rules.
Yep. It won't be fun when the authorities knock on WiredTree et al's door and ask them to justify their IP usage. If you can't provide proof of high utilization, whoever you depend on for your IP addresses can refuse to allocate any further IPs until the situation is rectified. Then you're stuck in the awkward situation of having to revoke IPs from existing customers, because otherwise you won't be able to take in any new customers. Neither option is good for business.

@ARIN:

4.1.7. RFC 2050

ARIN takes guidance from allocation and assignment policies and procedures set forth in RFC 2050. These guidelines were developed to meet the needs of the larger Internet community in conserving scarce IPv4 address space and allowing continued use of existing Internet routing technologies.
@RFC 2050:

3. ISPs are required to utilize address space in an efficient

manner. To this end, ISPs should have documented

justification available for each assignment. The regional

registry may, at any time, ask for this information. If the

information is not available, future allocations may be impacted.

In extreme cases, existing loans may be impacted.

@empoweringmedia:

Does Linode lack the IP space? I've NEVER had as many issues with getting dedicated IP addresses as I had with Linode. Yes I get there is a shortage of IP addresses, but it isn't as bad as Linode makes it sounds like. Your policies border on the absurd!
I tried finding HostCube's IP allocation policy, following the links helpfully provided in your signature, but could not do so with a few moments of clicking around. How does your Managed VPS service deal with technical justification for IPv4 allocations, and have you ever had problems getting initial allocations from other RIRs such as RIPE or APNIC due to them?

Just curious.

@OverlordQ:

@empoweringmedia:

In order to get a dedicated IP address, I must jump through hoops every single time!! I get it. It must be for SSL only.

Does Linode lack the IP space? I've NEVER had as many issues with getting dedicated IP addresses as I had with Linode. Yes I get there is a shortage of IP addresses, but it isn't as bad as Linode makes it sounds like. Your policies border on the absurd!

As much as I like your service overall, if this continues to be an issue I will create instances with other cloud providers and will not recommend Linode for anyone who needs SSL or multiple IP addresses.
No, it's not absurd, it's ARIN rules.

ARIN rules aren't the issue, and know them thank you. The issue is I have to go through the SAME POLICY everytime to get one ip address. A real pain to say the least. It's like I have to give my up first child just to get an IP address.

@hoopycat:

@empoweringmedia:

Does Linode lack the IP space? I've NEVER had as many issues with getting dedicated IP addresses as I had with Linode. Yes I get there is a shortage of IP addresses, but it isn't as bad as Linode makes it sounds like. Your policies border on the absurd!
I tried finding HostCube's IP allocation policy, following the links helpfully provided in your signature, but could not do so with a few moments of clicking around. How does your Managed VPS service deal with technical justification for IPv4 allocations, and have you ever had problems getting initial allocations from other RIRs such as RIPE or APNIC due to them?

Just curious.

We are no different than Linode's policy. Since we are managed we control the ip address allocation, not the customer. With our co location we've always gotten new IP space without issue (meaning multiple class Cs) Did we have to justify? Absolutely and it's all legit.

Bottom line is I don't understand why Linode makes it so complex and have to jump through so many hoops where in some cases they tell us they can't give us an IP address because we already have one dedicated IP.

It takes like two seconds to copy paste a form request and update it with pertinent info, I fail to see the problem

Someone who has links to one of Linode's competitors in his sig posts a complaint about Linode. Troll, much?

@pclissold:

Someone who has links to one of Linode's competitors in his sig posts a complaint about Linode. Troll, much?
It's my company thank you. We offer management of cloud services such as Linode. Who's the troll?

@OverlordQ:

It takes like two seconds to copy paste a form request and update it with pertinent info, I fail to see the problem
Well I agree and tell that to Linode. It took 5 replies (and 3-4 hours later) from Linode for the latest request to finally get the IP address.

@empoweringmedia:

ARIN rules aren't the issue, and know them thank you. The issue is I have to go through the SAME POLICY everytime to get one ip address. A real pain to say the least. It's like I have to give my up first child just to get an IP address.

I'd hardly equate opening a support ticket with giving up one's first child.

@empoweringmedia:

It's my company thank you. We offer management of cloud services such as Linode. Who's the troll?
I do apologize, it looks like I may have read out-of-date information on the "About HostCube" page:

> At HostCube, we are able to distinguish ourselves from countless other providers by offering great service at an incredible value to our customers. Unlike most web hosting providers, we own all our equipment and do not rent from another provider. Our combination high quality hardware, proven software, and top notch service makes us hard to beat.
Please, carry on.

@empoweringmedia:

It took 5 replies (and 3-4 hours later) from Linode for the latest request to finally get the IP address.
I wonder how many of those hours (if any) were wasted because of the client's inability to offer a straightforward justification for the extra IP, and how many were due to actual issues with Linode's response time. Has anyone else needed to launch a second SSL website lately? Is it really so difficult to get a second IP, or is it still as simple as "Justification: second SSL website" ?

@hybinet:

… Has anyone else needed to launch a second SSL website lately? Is it really so difficult to get a second IP, or is it still as simple as "Justification: second SSL website" ?
I raised a ticket asking for two additional IPs for a client. Ticket was answered in minutes, raising the maximum allocation on that node to three. Once I activated the addresses, Linode support wanted to see real (i.e. not self signed) certificates within a reasonable time frame.

@AVonGauss:

I'd hardly equate opening a support ticket with giving up one's first child.
It's called a metaphor and a joke.

@pclissold:

@hybinet:

… Has anyone else needed to launch a second SSL website lately? Is it really so difficult to get a second IP, or is it still as simple as "Justification: second SSL website" ?
I raised a ticket asking for two additional IPs for a client. Ticket was answered in minutes, raising the maximum allocation on that node to three. Once I activated the addresses, Linode support wanted to see real (i.e. not self signed) certificates within a reasonable time frame.
That's definitely not my case. For the approximately 5-6 times we've done it's been the same routine. After the last email from them in which they said they wouldn't give it to us because we already have one dedicated IP (the server's) I have to threaten to look at other cloud providers. I've had to do this at least three times. Unacceptable.

Let me add we currently have 13 instances with Linode (ones we own ourselves and not customers)

I can easily expand with them, but not so sure based upon this and their cost per GB for disk. At least for high disk space requirements. I've determined no cloud provider is the best and you must pick your provider based upon your specific requirements.

@hoopycat:

@empoweringmedia:

It's my company thank you. We offer management of cloud services such as Linode. Who's the troll?
I do apologize, it looks like I may have read out-of-date information on the "About HostCube" page:

> At HostCube, we are able to distinguish ourselves from countless other providers by offering great service at an incredible value to our customers. Unlike most web hosting providers, we own all our equipment and do not rent from another provider. Our combination high quality hardware, proven software, and top notch service makes us hard to beat.
Please, carry on.
We offer management of VPSes within our network AND external cloud providers. The managment of Linode is a new service. Managed cloud service. Customers who want to use a Linode or EC2 but not our VPSes (for whatever reason). We still manage our own hardware. Thanks again for the troll statement. As you were saying?

I'm obviously getting nowhere and the trolls are obviously in full force in their basements.

@empoweringmedia:

I'm obviously getting nowhere and the trolls are obviously in full force in their basements.

Have you ever heard of that saying you get more flies with honey than with being a pompus ass….at least that is what I think it was. At any rate I can understand your frustration but this is linode's policy so you need to follow it as a customer.

If you want more ips just justify them per the rules, I fail to see the issue?

@empoweringmedia:

I'm obviously getting nowhere and the trolls are obviously in full force in their basements.

I agree, you're getting nowhere and you are obviously in full force.

It's Linodes policy and they have it well defined. Do you also complain about their pricing decisions and their policy to not allow customers to host phishing sites?

@pclissold:

@hybinet:

… Has anyone else needed to launch a second SSL website lately? Is it really so difficult to get a second IP, or is it still as simple as "Justification: second SSL website" ?
I raised a ticket asking for two additional IPs for a client. Ticket was answered in minutes, raising the maximum allocation on that node to three. Once I activated the addresses, Linode support wanted to see real (i.e. not self signed) certificates within a reasonable time frame.

This has been exactly my experience as well. I have one linode with 6 or 7 IP addresses at the moment, and have never received any pushback from Linode staff. As pclissold said, as long as you get the certs up, there's no issue.

On a personal note, empoweringmedia, I have made a mental note to never use nor recommend your services. If you conduct yourself in the same manner with the Linode staff as you do here, it's no wonder your requests get put in the bottom of the bucket.

@empoweringmedia:

… After the last email from them in which they said they wouldn't give it to us because we already have one dedicated IP (the server's) …
So the node had an available IP that didn't have anything running on the port you needed, and they didn't want to give you an unnecessary IP. I don't see the issue. Unless they were mistaken that the IP:port was available?

Edit: On another note, this thread sure went downhill. If any of you work in customer service, I hope your fuses aren't so short when dealing with customers, whether they're rude and unreasonable or not.

Edit: Rewrote edit.

@mnordhoff:

Edit: On another note, this thread sure went downhill. If any of you work in customer service, I hope your fuses aren't so short when dealing with customers, whether they're rude and unreasonable or not.

Edit: Rewrote edit.

I have no patience for trolls who add no relevancy to a topic and instead calling me a troll. Instead I get chastised and attacked for non related issues to the topic. Why? I have no idea, ask them. My sig is not in violation of any of Linode forums rules that I am aware of.

Call me silly, if you aren't adding to a discussion, don't bother replying to a topic.

Getting back to the original purpose of this thread:

With relation to Linode, the request for additional IP addresses has been the same convoluted process for us every time. I in fact usually don't submit the tickets and get involved only after the 4 response from them.

It should be as simple as:

Customer: "We needed a dedicated IP address"

Linode: "ok here you go. Make sure it's per these requirements…. if not it will be removed in two weeks."

Done and end of story.

Related to good customer service that's how it's done. Not after the 5-6 communications with Linode asking for the same request and then we get the same run around. "We see you already have a dedicated IP address…" or "the main ssl does not seem to be valid.." (which is because of the control panel used).

If that's unreasonable, then it must be just me.

Fair enough, back on topic it is..

You mentioned that "in some cases they tell us they can't give us an IP address because we already have one dedicated IP". Have you already every existing IP address on the server for an SSL site?

If your Linode server is supposed to run, say, two SSL websites, you only need two IP addresses total; your Linode's primary IP address, plus one additional. In your scenario, are you trying to ask for one additional per SSL website you need to run, without using the primary IP already assigned to the Linode?

@NeonNero:

Fair enough, back on topic it is..

You mentioned that "in some cases they tell us they can't give us an IP address because we already have one dedicated IP". Have you already every existing IP address on the server for an SSL site?

No. The control panel uses the main IP and by default it's a fake SSL cert. This is the method in the way the control panel was developed, not us. In this case it's DirectAdmin.

The primary IP can be used for SSL, but then cannot use shared ip hosting, non SSL web sites. I believe this is the limitation if memory serves me correctly. I personally don't deal with this on a daily basis so I might off in the specifics.

Bottom line is the primary ip cannot be used when other shared accounts within the control panel are using it. You CAN however have another IP that is used exclusively for SSL web sites. So then that means at minimum two IPs per instance.

For the others who are responding perhaps they don't use any control panels. Which is fine. We have cases where customers don't want a control panel either. Most managed customers do want a control panel since they don't want direct root access.

We are limited to the configuration options within the control panel since we didn't develop it. I'm not going to hack apache config files so they can break in the future from a control panel refresh. Just so we can comply to Linode's draconian IP allocation.

@empoweringmedia:

I in fact usually don't submit the tickets and get involved only after the 4 response from them.
If you only get involved after 4 rounds of back-and-forth, and if most IP allocation requests take 5-6 rounds, it would seem that most requests actually only take 1-2 rounds of communication after someone who apparently knows what he's doing (namely, you) gets involved. That doesn't sound all that unreasonable, especially when a client who doesn't know what he's doing has already made Linode staff suspicious with the previous 4 rounds of futile communication.

@empoweringmedia:

"the main ssl does not seem to be valid.." (which is because of the control panel used).
Control panels can be easily moved to an alternate port without any loss of functionality. In fact, many control panels automatically use a default port that is not 443, and if yours doesn't, it's your job to fix it. There's no reason to waste port 443 with a certificate that the general public won't accept anyway. So it's definitely unusual and unreasonable to ask for a second IP just because you want to run a control panel on port 443. If you're doing this on a regular basis, no wonder Linode staff gets extra cautious about giving out IPs to you and your clients.

Install control panels on an alternate port, and tell your clients exactly what they should tell Linode if they really need additional IPs. Or even better, just log in on their behalf and make a proper request yourself in the first place. Shouldn't that be part of your management service?

Edit: Doesn't DirectAdmin use port 2222 by default?

@ohkus:

@empoweringmedia:

I'm obviously getting nowhere and the trolls are obviously in full force in their basements.

Have you ever heard of that saying you get more flies with honey than with being a pompus ass….at least that is what I think it was. At any rate I can understand your frustration but this is linode's policy so you need to follow it as a customer.

If you want more ips just justify them per the rules, I fail to see the issue?

+1 I have to assume this guy is as pompous to support as he is here and is refusing to answer questions directly the first time, so that's why support had to keep asking

@hybinet:

Edit: Doesn't DirectAdmin use port 2222 by default?

Yes, it does.

I have ISPConfig on its default port of 8080 with a real SSL certificate installed. I also host five other sites from that same IP address without SSL. I also have an additional IP address which I obtained without any fuss by stating it was for SSL which is hosted on the same node. Also with no issue. All 443 ports answer with a valid SSL certificate plus port 8080 on the ISPConfig domain.

And if you're wondering about the responses you are getting from other members of the forum perhaps you should look at the title of the thread you created. Whether you meant it or not it comes off as an attack. Every time you open a support thread you likely get someone new and when they check your SSL certificates they see a self signed one by the sounds of things, so they start to question your need for another IP address. In my opinion Linode is being a responsible citizen and not just handing out IP addresses because someone asks. They justify the need before giving them out. Otherwise you'd be here two weeks from now crying because they took your IP away because you haven't justified its use.

@empoweringmedia:

The primary IP can be used for SSL, but then cannot use shared ip hosting, non SSL web sites. I believe this is the limitation if memory serves me correctly. I personally don't deal with this on a daily basis so I might off in the specifics.

Bottom line is the primary ip cannot be used when other shared accounts within the control panel are using it. You CAN however have another IP that is used exclusively for SSL web sites. So then that means at minimum two IPs per instance.

For the others who are responding perhaps they don't use any control panels. Which is fine. We have cases where customers don't want a control panel either. Most managed customers do want a control panel since they don't want direct root access.

We are limited to the configuration options within the control panel since we didn't develop it. I'm not going to hack apache config files so they can break in the future from a control panel refresh. Just so we can comply to Linode's draconian IP allocation.
One IP can be used for countless shared hosting websites and one single SSL website.

If your server hosts one SSL website and, say, 200 shared hosting (non-SSL) websites, you only need the primary IP address, no additional IP addresses needed.

The limitation of "one SSL website per IP address" is only with SSL websites, and does not affect non-SSL websites in any way.

I'm referring to the control panel creating the apache config files for the primary ip address, NOT directadmin's admin port itself.

Also after searching Google and following one link on the DirectAdmin website I've figured our how to install a signed SSL certificate for DirectAdmins use. I'm willing to bet with another quick search I could figure out how to change the port.

Google knows all.

@NeonNero:

One IP can be used for countless shared hosting websites and one single SSL website.
In fact, if one of those SSL sites is only meant to be accessed by one or two people (like a control panel or a blog admin panel), you can even get away with hosting it on the same IP/port. You just need to make sure that the client doesn't use IE <= 8, because that's the only major browser that doesn't support SNI.

It's entirely possible that a few years from now, even SSL won't count as justification for extra IPv4 addresses anymore.

@empoweringmedia:

I'm referring to the control panel creating the apache config files for the primary web site, NOT directadmin's admin port itself.
You call yourself a managed service provider and you're too afraid to touch Apache configuration files? Pfft.

@hybinet:

If you only get involved after 4 rounds of back-and-forth, and if most IP allocation requests take 5-6 rounds, it would seem that most requests actually only take 1-2 rounds of communication after someone who apparently knows what he's doing (namely, you) gets involved. That doesn't sound all that unreasonable, especially when a client who doesn't know what he's doing has already made Linode staff suspicious with the previous 4 rounds of futile communication.

It's my staff, not the client. I sure hope my staff understands what they doing.

@empoweringmedia:

@hybinet:

If you only get involved after 4 rounds of back-and-forth, and if most IP allocation requests take 5-6 rounds, it would seem that most requests actually only take 1-2 rounds of communication after someone who apparently knows what he's doing (namely, you) gets involved. That doesn't sound all that unreasonable, especially when a client who doesn't know what he's doing has already made Linode staff suspicious with the previous 4 rounds of futile communication.

It's my staff, not the client. I sure hope my staff understands what they doing.
Well then your staff need better training. They shouldn't be wasting your clients', Linode's, and your time by not producing proper justification the first time around.

> You call yourself a managed service provider and you're too afraid to touch Apache configuration files? Pfft.

Yes, if it means a refresh by the control panel will break or rewrite what I need to change to work within the constraints of Linode.

And you do system administration?

I can see this thread is going absolutely nowhere.

@hybinet:

You call yourself a managed service provider and you're too afraid to touch Apache configuration files? Pfft.
In fairness some control panels overwrite manual config changes. ISPConfig overwrites changes to vhost files not made through the panel. The main config file can be manually changed though.

People,

Just because you have not had the bad experience empoweringmedia has had doesn't make him wrong or an idiot. He has a perfectly valid complaint, let him have his say.

I'll bet very few other people have had his kind of problems but only because few people require large numbers of IP addresses.

> Control panels can be easily moved to an alternate port without any loss of functionality. In fact, many control panels automatically use a default port that is not 443, and if yours doesn't, it's your job to fix it.

Exactly this. If directadmin is wasting port 443 on your primary IP move it to another port. You are getting hassle and paying money for one extra IP per server that you really should not need.

If directadmin won't cooperate I'd change it with something else.

If you really have a requirement for a large number of IP addresses Linode isn't the cheapest way to buy these. What you want is a dedicated server with a /24.

@sednet:

> Control panels can be easily moved to an alternate port without any loss of functionality. In fact, many control panels automatically use a default port that is not 443, and if yours doesn't, it's your job to fix it.

Exactly this. If directadmin is wasting port 443 on your primary IP move it to another port. You are getting hassle and paying money for one extra IP per server that you really should not need.

If directadmin won't cooperate I'd change it with something else.

If you really have a requirement for a large number of IP addresses Linode isn't the cheapest way to buy these. What you want is a dedicated server with a /24.

It comes back to the control panel and it's writing the config files. The primary IP can be used for shared hosting, but not for SSL. At least from my remembering and previous research. I don't feel like redoing the previous research to prove my point as this thread is getting old fast.

To the ones that suggesting changing 443, how do you propose without then breaking the control panel rewriting these files in the future? You can't, or I'm not aware of a simple method to do this.

The shared ssl can be used as there are common apps (ie phpMyAdmin) via a primary URL. Linode's main beef it appears it's not a real SSL cert installed. We do have a wildcard cert we can install in some cases to appease the Linode gods.

There are cases in which the subdomain isn't ours. We could then force the client to buy a dedicated SSL cert, just to appease a $2/mo IP with Linode justification. That's outright silly.

In order to do SSL for a customer's web site, I need another IP address (it supports SNI). SNI on the second IP. Again, this isn't our limitation but the control panel. So in effect all we need is two total IP addresses per instance with DirectAdmin if we want to do SSL for any customer site.

I'm not going to replace a control panel, which also works very well in a VPS memory constrained setup because of Linode's policy. cPanel for example I believe can do this without issue, but still a memory/resource pig.

Yes it is possible DirectAdmin could somehow rework their code, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm dealing with current limitations not something in the future. Instead we are having to go through hoops just to achieve a simple result and haven't had this issue anywhere else. Again the reason why I started this thread to begin with, not to get troll posts.

Actually I just spoke to one of my techs and the most recent case it's because we have frontpage (yes trolls I'm aware it's no longer supported, but to offer good customer service we still offer it. Believe me I would no longer want to offer it).

We must run apache 1.x to use FrontPage server extensions, which does not support SNI. We also have other installs where Apache 1.x must be used for other various supporting products too.

@empoweringmedia:

It comes back to the control panel and it's writing the config files. The primary IP can be used for shared hosting, but not for SSL. At least from my remembering and previous research. I don't feel like redoing the previous research to prove my point as this thread is getting old fast.
Gawd, that sucks. Sorry, I must have missed the last post where you mentioned this technicality.

@empoweringmedia:

To the ones that suggesting changing 443, how do you propose without then breaking the control panel rewriting these files in the future? You can't, or I'm not aware of a simple method to do this.
That's something you need to ask on the DA forums. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else has run into similar problems, given how scarce IPv4 addresses have become nowadays.

In any case, I still don't agree that Linode's IPv4 allocation policy "stinks", because:

@The Other Air Force:

In fairness some control panels overwrite manual config changes.
In fairness, "my control panel sucks" is NOT a valid justification for IPv4 allocation.

If your control panel always overwrote MaxClients to 150, would you buy a Linode 4096 to accommodate this inefficiency? How is it different if your control panel always requires N+1 IPs to run N secure sites? If you can't convince your client to change control panels, a bit of hassle obtaining IPs is only to be expected.

Some hosts might allow it because they want to attract customers now at the risk of running out of IPs later. But Linode isn't one of those hosts, and there's nothing wrong with sticking to rules.

@hybinet:

If your control panel always overwrote MaxClients to 150, would you buy a Linode 4096 to accommodate this inefficiency? How is it different if your control panel always requires N+1 IPs to run N secure sites? If you can't convince your client to change control panels, a bit of hassle obtaining IPs is only to be expected.

Ultimately in my end, if the customer wants it, they get it. I'll point out those issues, but it's not my decision.

My decision is to stay with DirectAdmin, because overall it's a much better, stable, secure and reliable control panel. Regardless of any minor limitations. Cpanel is of course more popular, but never had to worry about the issues that come with that mess of a control panel.

This sucks! I need additional IP's and can't get none. I am on Linode 1536 and one IP really is bad. On hostgator even with the cheapest VPS package ( $23.95) you get 2 or 4 IP's. Additional 1 or 2 IPs without technical justification would be nice, hope to see improvements about this problem…

See https://www.arin.net/knowledge/v4-v6.html

ARIN is due to run out of IPv4's AT CURRENT USAGE RATES in July 2013..

http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html

@georgi:

This sucks! I need additional IP's and can't get none. I am on Linode 1536 and one IP really is bad. On hostgator even with the cheapest VPS package ( $23.95) you get 2 or 4 IP's. Additional 1 or 2 IPs without technical justification would be nice, hope to see improvements about this problem…

If you can't justify the second IP, why do you need it?

$$ justifies it i think. SEO purposes.

@georgi:

$ justifies it i think. SEO purposes.

It does no such thing. If money were sufficient justification, the IPv4 pool would have been exhausted a long time ago.

I am paying 60$ for VPS .. hostgator users get 2-4 for 20$. Do you see what's not really fair in this? Don't get me wrong!

I moved to Linode and I am very happy and never will go back but this IP problem is really drives me crazy.

@georgi:

I am paying 60$ for VPS .. hostgator users get 2-4 for 20$. Do you see what's not really fair in this? Don't get me wrong

Well then either Hostgator has more "reserves" in their allocation than Linode does, or they're not playing by ARIN's rules as far as justification goes.

@georgi:

this IP problem is really drives me crazy.
Then you're being driven crazy by a fake problem. Search engines don't care about the number of IP addresses you control. (There are more SEO things that search engines don't care about, but that's not relevant here.)

Let me start by saying I don't need any additional IP's, just an observation here.

I think IP allocation should be a case by case basis. What if I happen to host 2 websites that are from opposing organizations. This could cause a conflict, albeit petty, but try explaining that to your client :) So now I have to get another node and thereby another IP, even though all sites will run fine on one nodes resources. I'm sure there are more examples of why someone would need another IP other than SSL.

I'm not saying Linode should revamp their policies, I'm saying ARIN should :)

@Zr40:

Search engines don't care about the number of IP addresses you control.

Is the idea to have multiple IP addresses pointing to the site somehow, so that they look like separate web sites linking to you or something? I don't understand the need for multiple IP addresses here.

James

@u4ia:

I think IP allocation should be a case by case basis. What if I happen to host 2 websites that are from opposing organizations. This could cause a conflict, albeit petty, but try explaining that to your client :)

This happens all the time, and nobody notices nor cares. Consider shared hosting providers. IP addresses are meaningless, and humans never see them unless they look. (Consider www.reddit.com, www.foxnews.com, and www.whitehouse.gov…)

@empoweringmedia:

No. The control panel uses the main IP and by default it's a fake SSL cert. This is the method in the way the control panel was developed, not us. In this case it's DirectAdmin.

That is not true. DirectAdmin is by default installed on plain http. Then if you install a ssl certificate for the main ip, it will work without problems. There is no fake certs, unless you choose to install a self signed ssl certificate instead of buying a real one.

You need to buy a ssl certificate and have the knowledge on how to install it correctly.

I am using DirectAdmin on my Linode main ip, and using a valid ssl certificate, and it works great.

cPanel/WHM requires 2 IPs if you're intending to have a secure customer website as well as run all the WHM/cPanel services.

1 IP with self-signed SSL used for default WHM & cPanel services such as mail, login etc. E.g. host.xyz.com/cpanel

1 additional IP required for the customer site secured with a purchased SSL cert, www.xyz.com/customers

I queried with Linode support yesterday about getting an additional IP address for this purpose and they were quite happy to allow an extra IP for this justification.

@zunzun:

@Zr40:

Search engines don't care about the number of IP addresses you control.

Is the idea to have multiple IP addresses pointing to the site somehow, so that they look like separate web sites linking to you or something? I don't understand the need for multiple IP addresses here.

Yes, that's exactly the idea. And multiple IP addresses definitely helps. If you own 4 websites and they're all on the same IP address then cross-linking them will look fishy. Do the same thing from 4 different IP addresses and it's a whole different ball game.

No, it does not. Repeat after me: Search engines do not care about IP addresses being the same. They do care about the quality of the content. If you're setting up a link farm, search engines will dislike that, whether you host them all on a single IP address or a hundred.

@Zr40:

No, it does not. Repeat after me: Search engines do not care about IP addresses.

You do realise that you will have to qualify that statement or you are going to look silly?

Sure. There is no benefit for search engines to penalize for the number of sites hosted on a single IP address. Now you qualify your own statement about search engines caring about it :D

As I posted before, search engines (especially Google) care about the content, not some irrelevant technical details. Make sure the content's okay before worrying about minutiae like the number of sites hosted on a single address.

@Zr40:

There is no benefit for search engines to penalize for the number of sites hosted on a single IP address.

First of all, you don't know that. And even if you know for one search engine, that doesn't mean the same thing applies to all search engines. Furthermore, I didn't say that they penalized based on the amount of sites on one IP address (that would be silly), I said that cross-linking may be a problem.

@Zr40:

Now you qualify your own statement about search engines caring about it :D

Not a problem for me to do that for you. I am reasonable after all.

Matt Cutts from Google talks about the problem of cross-linking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGw65-1je8

Surely you can see why it would then be a good idea to have your websites on different IP addresses if you plan to do any artificial linking like that.

On top of that, even though it is anecdotal evidence, I have seen traffic to one of my sites drop (on the order of 25%) on 3 separate occassions after linking to it from another website I host on the same IP address. I did it 3 times over a period of 9 months to test the theory.

@Zr40:

As I posted before, search engines (especially Google) care about the content, not some irrelevant technical details. Make sure the content's okay before worrying about minutiae like the number of sites hosted on a single address.

I thoroughly agree with this.

@nehalem:

Matt Cutts from Google talks about the problem of cross-linking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGw65-1je8

Surely you can see why it would then be a good idea to have your websites on different IP addresses if you plan to do any artificial linking like that.
Matt Cutts doesn't mention anything about IP addresses in that video. What he indirectly talks about, is linking to relevant content (ie. what makes sense linking to), and link farms (30 or 300 seemingly random and irrelevant links).

As zr40 pointed out, different IP addresses to websites is a minor detail that search engines do not care about. Content is a lot more relevant.

@nehalem:

[..] do any artificial linking like that.
Well, don't do any artificial linking! :D

> Matt Cutts doesn't mention anything about IP addresses in that video.

And no one said he did, however:

> Surely you can see why it would then be a good idea to have your websites on different IP addresses if you plan to do any artificial linking like that.

…after watching the video.

> As zr40 pointed out, different IP addresses to websites is a minor detail that search engines do not care about. Content is a lot more relevant.

And I thoroughly agree as well.

> Well, don't do any artificial linking!

Now, that's what you should have said a long time ago. :D

So agreed, if you are doing whitehat stuff then it doesn't matter if your sites are on one IP address.

@nehalem:

…if you are doing whitehat stuff…
That's generally an implicit assumption around here.

OK. Here is the thing. Google banned thousands of cross linked websites recently. They weren't on single IP address, but were from

one network. Having additional IPs won't solve these problems. What I am concerned is that having one IP does not provide protection for example if you are a web developer (like myself) and you have clients which you are hosting on the VPS, these clients are often yelling about

"Aaa on the web server you are hosting our site there are too many sites, I am not getting proper hosting solution from you, get me my site I'll host it else where" or

"I saw you have other websites made with same gallery as our website.."

So I can't really host as many sites as I could on the VPS, finding second hosting provider can solve that but I prefer everything to be on just one place, comes thin on the pocket and management is faster.

Having one or two addresses would solve these problems.

You can also buy more than one VPS, of course.

Also, is this an actual thing you've heard from a client after selling them shared hosting, or are you just making this up? And where, exactly, are they going to take their business?

Google bans cross-linked websites all the time. The issue there is not that they come from a single ip address, or even a single network. The cross-linking refers to the practice of trying to game the search engines by having massive numbers of sites (from ANY network), created by the same person/persons/organisation, linking to the same site, in order to increase their "page rank". Having them all on one ip or network makes them easier to spot, but is not the criteria that makes sites "cross-linked".

Thanks for that link hoopycat. Perfect example.