GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Host refusing to give additional IPs ? WTF ? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1028176)

TurboAngel 06-28-2011 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyRob (Post 18244135)
Dump that host. www.nationalnet.com rocks.

They do!


:thumbsup

JFK 06-28-2011 09:14 AM

Fitty one :(

porno jew 06-28-2011 09:15 AM

another webair success story.

Internet User 06-28-2011 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyRob (Post 18244135)
Dump that host. www.nationalnet.com rocks.

NatNet told us to FUCK OFF when we asked for some more IPs

We have had 2 servers and guess how many total IPs we were allowed? 2. They have this stupid 1 server = 1 IP policy.

They basically said that the internet has ran out of IPs and they were doing us a huge favor by SELLING and extra IP. (we were having auth problems with NATS domains and paysite domains, that's why we asked for extra)

:disgust

Spudstr 06-28-2011 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by criticaldotnet (Post 18245214)
What in your mind is a reasonable amount of ips? IpV4 might be running out but you also got to understand more and more company's are turning in legacy space, and arin, ripe and others are slowly taking ips over from company's that are dead.

IPV6 may be the future but it is still years away. Most of this country, not to mention most of the world does not have equipment to handle IPv6 and the reason why it is continued to be delayed is because of the cost to prepare the networks for IPv6 (Routers, Man Hours)

I say this personally. I think it is wrong for any host to deny IPv4 if the space is available and a customer has a legit reason to use it. I am sick and tired of these games on how ARIN is not handing out new IP Space, and or a host to tell a client they do not need that much ip space and bully them into either putting up with it or moving.


You of all people should be one to understand this theory, instead of making everything a big sales/marketing stunt everywhere why don't you take a step back and look at things?

When was the last time you applied for IP space? behind holders of 3x /20's and a /19 we recently applied for another /19 but were denied and only given a /21 thats 3 months of usage/growth. ARIN is only allocating IP space based on your 3 month growth expectation. So if you are burning IP space to customers for no reason they are going to flat out deny you ip space. Why? because they can and they will. It is MUCH harder to obtain IP space now. New companies must provide fully executed documents with their 2+ upstream networks AND colocation facility(where applies) to just prove that they are taking space and qualify for IP space now.

Cost to deploy a network for IPv6 is minimal. I can guarantee our network is larger and more complex than yours due to the amount of office buildings we service and our fiber network. You know how long it took us to turn up our IPv6 BGP/OSPF mesh on our backbone like our IPv4 space? Just under 4 hours to do all the configurations on the equipment. So please don't give me the excuse ohhh the time it takes to deploy and the routers.. because any network in todays world that is running a network with full IPv4 routes is MORE than capable of running IPv6 right now at the same time. This being given a minimum of a csico 6500 series running 720-3bxl gear. Nothing else in the cisco world that is smaller than that device will support less than a full routing table.

What is defined as "legit" surely there is no law to dictate how IP space can be used or should be used. the RIR's use 'technical justification' in other word in their eyese are you handling this properly? Arin fully expects you to issue a /29 to each user at the minimum. Which frankly is a fair amount of usable IP space. 5 usable IPs is more than enough for many users. While ARIN is taking back legacy space, if you actually paid attention to ARIN's policy and news you would know they "hold" the ip space for 6 months. So this means the request queue will simply fill up. Now this game has turned into a lottory. When IP space becomes available will you get your share? Maybe.. Maybe not.

So this then turns into a business decision. You can either A. give someone a bunch of ips for free or charge them very minimal for it. or charge them modest.. or simply not give them IP's at all. What does your company the best? Do you make more per customer based on default allocations? What happens when you run out of space but you got a couple /24's sitting around being used by these customers and you have a large contract to fill that simply uses minimal IP space per machine and frankly you make more with this new contract because well they are paying for a large box and bandwidth. What do you do? reclaim IP space and piss off a customer who has been there for years? Or turn down the contract? Simply because you can't get additional IP space from ARIN. And more than likely your up-streams wont give you IP space either because you are a BGP customer with your own space.

The major limitation of IPv6 right now is the firewall companies/venders. Which is quickly being resolved due to pressure by large networks. Once this is "resolved" IPv6 will be more widely adapted. Home network devices will start adapting to IPv6 and more and more use will start happening. If you look at the IPv6 routing table it is growing at an exponential rate since last year, its going gangbusters on growth.

So go a head and give all your ip space to customers. We have always been known as a not so friendly for SEO hosting because we are strict on IP usage. And frankly I am fine with that. Simply means no one is going to risk doing anything to blacklist our ranges with serps and a slew of other problems that come with it.

baddog 06-28-2011 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spudstr (Post 18245292)
So go a head and give all your ip space to customers. We have always been known as a not so friendly for SEO hosting because we are strict on IP usage. And frankly I am fine with that. Simply means no one is going to risk doing anything to blacklist our ranges with serps and a slew of other problems that come with it.

:1orglaugh nice try.

LBBV 06-28-2011 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradBreakfast (Post 18244207)
NationalNet really needs a website overhaul....bad!

I couldn't agree more, but stay tuned as we should have the new one up in a month or so :thumbsup

- Bill

fuzebox 06-28-2011 12:18 PM

I remember when they suggested you put each of your domains on their own IP for seo purposes... I think it was 2003?

Spudstr 06-28-2011 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 18245582)
:1orglaugh nice try.

Hey, I'm just saying we don't give IP's out for that reasoning. Its just simply not part of our model.

baddog 06-28-2011 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spudstr (Post 18245664)
Hey, I'm just saying we don't give IP's out for that reasoning. Its just simply not part of our model.

Cool, however, I am pretty sure IP ranges were being blocked long before SEO hosting came to be.

LBBV 06-28-2011 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Internet User (Post 18245265)
NatNet told us to FUCK OFF when we asked for some more IPs

We have had 2 servers and guess how many total IPs we were allowed? 2. They have this stupid 1 server = 1 IP policy.

They basically said that the internet has ran out of IPs and they were doing us a huge favor by SELLING and extra IP. (we were having auth problems with NATS domains and paysite domains, that's why we asked for extra)

:disgust

Hi

I think there may be some sort of misunderstanding here. We have no such 1 server 1 IP policy and never have had. We have never denied a valid request for IP addresses. If you would like to contact me via a sales ticket in our ticketing system, I would be more than happy to look at this and see what the story is.

Thanks

-- Bill

Spudstr 06-28-2011 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 18245674)
Cool, however, I am pretty sure IP ranges were being blocked long before SEO hosting came to be.

I'm just referring to the people who abuse the system and get their ips blocked from google. Not talking about mail etc.

Spudstr 06-28-2011 04:06 PM

I stand corrected. There is an ARIN policy for customers who request larger than /29 ip space.

https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four2372
4.2.3.7.5. Accounting for additional utilization

The following format should be used to provide the required information for utilization of blocks smaller than /29 and for describing internal networks when either SWIP or RWhois server is not used:
City Which IP Addresses Assigned No. of Ports No. of Dial-up Clients
City Which IP Addresses Assigned No. of Internal Machines Purpose
Which IP Addresses Assigned List URLs for Websites

basically in short if you have more than 5 ips and your host gets challenged by arin.. which they will.. because we have been challenged by arin when we got our latest allocation they will ask for proof of customer information and their allocation details and how they are used.

I can't wait to see what some hosts start doing when this happens.

critical 06-28-2011 05:19 PM

Fabien hit me up...

I can route some of my ips to your host, LOL.

Either that or move to here.

619-306-3072

rowan 06-28-2011 06:32 PM

Wasting 3 (network, gateway, broadcast) out of 8 IPs in a typical /29 customer subnet seems pretty wasteful to me... in a /24 (or class C old school) that's 96 IPs unusable, or a whopping 37.5% of the whole block. Exclude the first and last /29 from customer allocations to be safe (since the net and broadcast addresses clash with a /24) and you're up to 112 unusable IPs, or 43.7% wasted

Isn't it possible to set up a VLAN that presents as a /24 to the customer but is internally a /29 (quietly rerouting ether packets to other customers on the /24) so that instead there's only 3 out of 256 IPs wasted? It won't change what you have to give to customers (it's still a /29) but since they have 3 extra IPs it will reduce the chances of them needing to ask for extra subnets.

(This is from my previous life as an ISP, been a while since I did hardcore networking, so I may be a little rusty.)

Horny Guy 06-28-2011 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spudstr (Post 18246341)
I stand corrected. There is an ARIN policy for customers who request larger than /29 ip space.

https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four2372
4.2.3.7.5. Accounting for additional utilization

The following format should be used to provide the required information for utilization of blocks smaller than /29 and for describing internal networks when either SWIP or RWhois server is not used:
City Which IP Addresses Assigned No. of Ports No. of Dial-up Clients
City Which IP Addresses Assigned No. of Internal Machines Purpose
Which IP Addresses Assigned List URLs for Websites

basically in short if you have more than 5 ips and your host gets challenged by arin.. which they will.. because we have been challenged by arin when we got our latest allocation they will ask for proof of customer information and their allocation details and how they are used.

I can't wait to see what some hosts start doing when this happens.


I have hundreds of ips for going on years now ....since this post started i added another 10 to my list ...my host no probs at all ....been there 9 years .....and they got lot more ips if i need :)

Spudstr 06-28-2011 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowan (Post 18246668)
Wasting 3 (network, gateway, broadcast) out of 8 IPs in a typical /29 customer subnet seems pretty wasteful to me... in a /24 (or class C old school) that's 96 IPs unusable, or a whopping 37.5% of the whole block. Exclude the first and last /29 from customer allocations to be safe (since the net and broadcast addresses clash with a /24) and you're up to 112 unusable IPs, or 43.7% wasted

Isn't it possible to set up a VLAN that presents as a /24 to the customer but is internally a /29 (quietly rerouting ether packets to other customers on the /24) so that instead there's only 3 out of 256 IPs wasted? It won't change what you have to give to customers (it's still a /29) but since they have 3 extra IPs it will reduce the chances of them needing to ask for extra subnets.

(This is from my previous life as an ISP, been a while since I did hardcore networking, so I may be a little rusty.)

There are other issues at hand by not isolating each customer to their own /24, inner customer traffic between servers, hijacking of ips among other things.

Fabien 06-29-2011 05:53 PM

See..... Huh see !
I ain't the only bitch'in/bragging around about this.


I know this is an issue (no more IP's letf) but until SE's stop penalizing too much domains under the same roof we're F*CKED !

CYF 06-29-2011 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fabien (Post 18249375)
until SE's stop penalizing too much domains under the same roof we're F*CKED !

Google's aware of shared hosting. They don't penalize for multiple domains on the same IP.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/myth-b...-ip-addresses/

u-Bob 06-29-2011 06:20 PM

time to get another host...

rowan 06-29-2011 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spudstr (Post 18246744)
There are other issues at hand by not isolating each customer to their own /24, inner customer traffic between servers, hijacking of ips among other things.

Yes, I know that can be a serious issue, which is why I'm talking about a faux /24. Isn't that how VLANs work? They pretend to be a /24 to the client box, but each port only ever sees packets for its own /29.

Like I said, been a while, maybe I'm misunderstanding things and there's no magic like that. :thumbsup

baddog 06-29-2011 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYF (Post 18249395)
Google's aware of shared hosting. They don't penalize for multiple domains on the same IP.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/myth-b...-ip-addresses/

Shared hosting and shared IPs are not the same thing.

TubeKing 06-29-2011 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 18249480)
Shared hosting and shared IPs are not the same thing.

shut up reseller

CYF 06-29-2011 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 18249480)
Shared hosting and shared IPs are not the same thing.

thank you, I'm aware of that.

alvaglia 11-04-2012 11:58 AM

I can provide many IPs
 
Is someone is interested I can supply servers with many IPs From 256 Ips to 2048 Ips

Anyone interested let me know.

Regards

J

Killswitch 11-04-2012 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TubeKing (Post 18249492)
shut up reseller

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

SinisterStudios 11-04-2012 06:07 PM

wow there is so much bullshit in this thread its comical. Some people really need to get off their high horses.

The SEO Hosting model isnt for every host out there. Its a nice part of our overall Hosting business, but its still a great service for customers who need to spread space out.

Customers swear by it and so do our managed SEO Clients and their rankings.

Kovachi 11-04-2012 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinisterStudios (Post 19294333)
wow there is so much bullshit in this thread its comical. Some people really need to get off their high horses.

The SEO Hosting model isnt for every host out there. Its a nice part of our overall Hosting business, but its still a great service for customers who need to spread space out.

Customers swear by it and so do our managed SEO Clients and their rankings.

Unless you own nac.net and as8001 then you're just a reseller.

SinisterStudios 11-04-2012 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kovachi (Post 19294398)
Unless you own nac.net and as8001 then you're just a reseller.

WTF are you talking about. We Own all our ASN's and IP's and never have been a reseller.

Kovachi 11-04-2012 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinisterStudios (Post 19294428)
WTF are you talking about. We Own all our ASN's and IP's and never have been a reseller.

Post your AS numbers then.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123