Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Why IP is so expensive?
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Why IP is so expensive?

I see some inviting offers recently, and I expect more in the holiday season. It is quite trendy for the provider to throw X GB memory within the LEB budget, so you can host multiple sites in one host.

However, if you care about the users' privacy and go to SSL, the extra IPv4 address usually costs 2$/m; then it makes little sense economically to put multiple eggs in one basket. As some providers even throw 512M for 24$/y with 1 IP address, why additional cost that much?

«1

Comments

  • Because the IPv4 address space is depleted and it actually costs that much for an IP. You don't need separate ips for multiple SSL sites, either.

    Thanked by 1rm_
  • IPv4 became exhausted, so this is why IP is expensive !

  • @bookstack said:
    However, if you care about the users' privacy and go to SSL, the extra IPv4 address usually costs 2$/m; then it makes little sense economically to put multiple eggs in one basket. As some providers even throw 512M for 24$/y with 1 IP address, why additional cost that much?

    More like why does the 512M VPS cost so less? There's the catch. Money making from addons, such as IPs.

  • @petris said:
    Because the IPv4 address space is depleted and it actually costs that much for an IP. You don't need separate ips for multiple SSL sites, either.

    You do if you still want to support IE7/IE8 on Windows XP, which is a lot of China and a few other countries.

  • budi1413budi1413 Member
    edited November 2013

    I'm using ssl and non ssl with the same ip, is that a bad practise?

  • in some dc , ipv4 is not expensive

  • @concerto49 said:
    You do if you still want to support IE7/IE8 on Windows XP, which is a lot of China and a few other countries.

    While I choose not to hold myself back because of those who can't or refuse to upgrade, there are other ways to solve the problems even without SNI. A UCC certificate can be used as well to serve multiple domains from a single IP, which is exactly what CloudFlare does with Pro accounts. IE7/8 on Windows XP support UCC certificates.

  • petris said: A UCC certificate can be used as well to serve multiple domains from a single IP, which is exactly what CloudFlare does with Pro accounts. IE7/8 on Windows XP support UCC certificates.

    It's just a different cost model. You have to pay for UCC. So it comes down to cheaper IPs or cheaper UCC.

  • Demand increasing/Supply decreasing. Economics 101.

  • Market forces dictate the price of IPv4, just like everything else that has demand.

    Thanked by 1PcJamesy
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    There will be a time when the market will push for ipv6. When IPv4 will cost 10 Eur a piece, some people will start switching.

  • johnlth93johnlth93 Member
    edited November 2013

    @Maounique said:
    There will be a time when the market will push for ipv6. When IPv4 will cost 10 Eur a piece, some people will start switching.

    I would be happy to utilize ipv6 if my ISP decide to provide it =)

    But that would take "quite some time" i believe

    HE tunnel is not possible becuz end point is unreachable due to nat'd ip by ISP

  • @concerto49 said:
    You do if you still want to support IE7/IE8 on Windows XP, which is a lot of China and a few other countries.

    Agree with you, From Google Analytics I can see that most user from China is still using IE7/8 and most of them with Windows XP, wondering why..hmm

  • I think all the add-ons are premium features, which include extra bandwidth, disk, cpu quota and IP addresses. If your requirement does not fit the "standard plan", you have to pay the premium for the customization.

    I will appreciate providers can list all add-ons and prices thus we can easily calculate the cost for our non-standard spec request.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    It depends, we have special customizable plans, with sliders or even with price calculators, but it does not work for all products.
    If you really wish extra ram only for your standard KVM instance, or only disk, then you have to pay premium because it breaks the ratio on the node and we end up with unused resources.

  • othelloRobothelloRob Member, Host Rep

    why additional cost that much?

    Because IPs have a cost to providers :)
    The LIR's have to pay fees to the RIR's, do the admin, handle the paperwork, justify the requirements, and can't have anymore than they have because it's run out.

  • kijinkijin Member
    edited November 2013

    @concerto49 said:
    You do if you still want to support IE7/IE8 on Windows XP, which is a lot of China and a few other countries.

    Just serve different SSL websites on different ports, and redirect each non-SSL domain to the corresponding port. This way, you can serve dozens of different SSL sites on a single IP without giving up IE6/7/8 compatibility. No UCC certificates required. No additional cost.

    Sure, the URL will look ugly (https://domain:port), but people who use IE6/7/8 deserve to see ugly URLs.

  • And some people behind firewalls, etc. cannot open websites on non-standard ports.

  • @kijin said:
    Sure, the URL will look ugly (https://domain:port), but people who use IE6/7/8 deserve to see ugly URLs.

    If you're a business and wanted those customers, would you say that? Come back to the real world.

  • @concerto49 said:
    If you're a business and wanted those customers, would you say that? Come back to the real world.

    In my experience, most people don't even care what the URL looks like, as long as there's a padlock icon and the non-SSL => SSL redirection is done correctly. Lots of LEB companies put their SolusVM panels on an SSL site with non-standard ports like 54321, and nobody complains about that.

  • charliecharlie Member, Host Rep

    @jcaleb said:
    in some dc , ipv4 is not expensive

    If provider bought lots of ipv4 pool (eq. some years ago, when the ipv4 pool was cheaper), it can sell cheap to their customers.

  • If a customer wants to have an e-commerce website and is not ready to pay $1/month for a dedicated IP - he should rethink his business model.

    Thanked by 2lbft Amfy
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    @rds100 said:
    If a customer wants to have an e-commerce website and is not ready to pay $1/month for a dedicated IP - he should rethink his business model.

    Sadly, the same will go in 5 years when renting will cost 10 Eur/IP.
    Since the sites will be in ipv4 only, no need for ISPs to deply IPv6 either, and since there are not many IPv6 visitors, the ecommerce sites will have to use IPv4 and since already spent a lot for those and everyone has IPv4 at home, why care for IPv6.

  • IPv6 functions a bit different than IPv4, and there are so many implementation issues at the software and hardware level that it seems like it will take forever to get IPv6 to function like IPv4 does now.
    To add more frustration and pain to this miserable situation, Cisco's solution was to run a dual stack implementation of IPv4 side by site with IPv6. Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong! Because network engineers will expect IPv6 to function like IPv4 in every scenario, even if they know it doesn't. It's human nature and force of habit. I would have been much nicer to start with a new infrastructure and convert to IPv6 step by step, but of course that's not possible because not everyone is doing it at the same pace or at all.

    Because of all this mess IPv4 addresses are so expensive, and their price will continue to go up.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    Indeed, unlike IP's Ram/ CPU/ Servers in general can just keep being produced, there is a specific amount of IP's the world has to share them as a result the value of IP's will go up and up and up.

    3 years I think until we hit the 50%+ take up on IPv6

  • @matt_securedspeed said: Demand increasing/Supply decreasing. Economics 101.

    This + opportunistic drive to make more money, taking advantage of the situation. Most providers pay between $0.20-$0.50 per IPv4 per month. I say "most", because those with their own allocations pay even less. To be fair, though, most of those with their own allocations charge less ($0.75 as opposed to the prevailing $1.00-1.50/month). Yep, textbook Economics 101 ;)

  • Ipv6 usage is growing slowly (at least in europe), for example, in switzerland, the largest isp has enabled ipv6 a few months ago and the ipv6 percentage user has increased from 2% to 10%, france an germany at 5%, worlwide 1.5% (it was at 0.65% one and a year ago at world launch day)
    For more stats: http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/

  • @johnlth93 said: HE tunnel is not possible becuz end point is unreachable due to nat'd ip by ISP

    What? "nat'd ip"? You mean non-public IP, or what...?

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited November 2013

    AnthonySmith said: 3 years I think until we hit the 50%+ take up on IPv6

    alpinedc said: orlwide 1.5% (it was at 0.65% one and a year ago at world launch day)

    Anthony, you are soooo optimistic !
    I do hope Europe will lead the way.

  • I blame google for the slow ipv6 adoption.

Sign In or Register to comment.