Howdy, Stranger!

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


Any reason a provider would only sell IPs in a block of 5?
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.

Any reason a provider would only sell IPs in a block of 5?

I need one extra IP. Instead of my provider being a good guy and doing it they want to do $15 a month for 5. Now given that's only $3 a month for an IP so it's not outrageous. But I don't need 5 extra IPs I only need 1 more!

Is there any technical reason they can't give me 1 more IP?

Could a reverse http proxy be used from a remote VPS as a work around for this or is that not worth the trouble? I just hate paying monthly for things I don't need!

«1

Comments

  • they are probably not set up for routing single IPs maybe - so they give you 1 IP which will actually consume 3 or so

  • Yea if this is a dedicated box a /30 will tie up 3 ips for your one, but a /29 will allow you to have 5 and tie up the same amount.

  • @hzr said:
    they are probably not set up for routing single IPs maybe - so they give you 1 IP which will actually consume 3 or so

    But i currently have 1 IP.... I want 2 total...

  • CoreyCorey Member
    edited February 2018

    @sureiam said:

    @hzr said:
    they are probably not set up for routing single IPs maybe - so they give you 1 IP which will actually consume 3 or so

    But i currently have 1 IP.... I want 2 total...

    Maybe you can ask them if your /30 is expandable to a /29 for less money, because with two /30 they are tying up 6 ips for your 2

    Another option is to move renumber to a /29 instead of your original /30

  • freerangecloudfreerangecloud Member, Patron Provider

    @sureiam said:

    Could a reverse http proxy be used from a remote VPS as a work around for this or is that not worth the trouble? I just hate paying monthly for things I don't need!

    If it's for web hosting you could install Nginx or similar on an external VPS and have it forward to a different port on your current server, or you could setup a VPN tunnel between the two VPSs and do some NAT trickery to forward requests to your current server, but both solutions would add latency and complications to your setup.

  • vLans?

  • @Nomad said:
    vLans?

    What does that have to do with it? The provider still has to assign addresses to his vlan.

  • sureiamsureiam Member
    edited February 2018

    @freerangecloud said:

    @sureiam said:

    Could a reverse http proxy be used from a remote VPS as a work around for this or is that not worth the trouble? I just hate paying monthly for things I don't need!

    If it's for web hosting you could install Nginx or similar on an external VPS and have it forward to a different port on your current server, or you could setup a VPN tunnel between the two VPSs and do some NAT trickery to forward requests to your current server, but both solutions would add latency and complications to your setup.

    I suppose I can open up the port needed on the remote server. Ideally I would prefer to have it closed off though and run to the other one via a VPN or SSH tunnel. However I don't know how much I would trust a VPN or SSH tunnel for a permanent production solution.

    I've been toying with the idea of a GlusterFS setup. Unsure if that's a good solution for this. The latency is only about 30ms but I know GlusterFS is generally used for within the same lan.

  • Corey said: Yea if this is a dedicated box a /30 will tie up 3 ips for your one,

    Why are they routing /30 ?

  • williewillie Member
    edited February 2018

    Jack said: Why not? It’s a single IP and only uses 3 IPs instead of 8 for a /29.

    What I mean is 1) what stops them from routing a single ip (/32) or a /31?, and 2) if they route a /29 why are only 5 of the 8 ips usable? This is a basic networking thing I'm sure, but I've never understood it.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    Zen said: /31 is useless because both addresses are consumed by network/broadcast requirements.

    There's no network/broadcast in those cases, i've been seeing /31's used for point-to-point type stuff.

    Infact, most of my BGP sessions are formed over unrouted IP blocks where the upstream cuts off a /31 or whatever for me.

    Weird, I know, but works?

    Francisco

    Thanked by 2Zen kkrajk
  • bsdguybsdguy Member
    edited February 2018

    It works because it's basically just another notation for not a subnet but rather a set of 2 IPs which is all that's needed sometimes, e.g. PtP as @Francisco mentioned. The trick is to understand that it's a question of perspective plus the devices OS or firm/software.

    The concept of "any subnet needs a network address, a broadcast address and a gateway address" is one from the perspective of routing and aiming at not having excessively large tables.

    Example: Being a hosters backend provider I/my routers typically think in terms of /24 or bigger. The hosters router then takes care of his diverse smaller subnets or even single IPs. Backend doesn't need to care (and of course the big picture is ASs containing many subnets).

    If routing is not required between any IPs then one must not think in terms of subnets/routing but can use any and all IPs and, say, what is a network address within a subnet in terms of routing becomes just any address like any other. Keep in mind how ethernet works (hint -> mac/arp).

    Back to the OP's question: It's all in a somewhat vague fluent state. It depends a lot on how their network is structured. One typical point is whether they have minimal "routing" brains in their switches (level 3) or whether their switches are just level 2 devices. Another point is how they manage their network which may or may not make it cheap to deal out single IPs which again (practically speaking) translates to users getting single IPs (possibly multiple ones) or getting only subnets. In OPs case the constellation seems to be that the provider either doesn't like (keep management costs low) or simply can't provide multiple single IPs (which is what OP wants).

  • There's always OVH or soyoustart with their ripe blocks that only have one time setup fee and upto /24 (256 ips)

  • sureiamsureiam Member
    edited February 2018

    Damn. it.. So what's I'm getting here is that there might be an actual technical reason why they can't deal out an individual IP to me. Now I'm gonna have to get creative or just fork over the extra cash and have 4 extra IPv4s sitting around twiddling their virtual thumbs.

  • sureiam said: Damn. it.. So what's I'm getting here is that there might be an actual technical reason why they can't deal out an individual IP to me. Now I'm gonna have to get creative or just fork over the extra cash and have 4 extra IPv4s sitting around twiddling their virtual thumbs.

    There is no technical reason why they can't give you a single one - just a business one, but there is a technical reason that to give you 1 usable IP they will "waste" several times more.

  • @hzr said:
    There is no technical reason why they can't give you a single one - just a business one, but there is a technical reason that to give you 1 usable IP they will "waste" several times more.

    Yes and no. One can, of course, drive pretty much anything to technical or business reasons but looking pragmatically I often makes sense to call it technical reasons because policy is usually implemented in the config and such, say, a lowly guy can't go against policy. At the same time it's probably not considered worth the effort to break ones rules because a normal (read: not big) customer wants something special.

    Also, considering the expertise level of many support people at many hosters technical and business reasons basically come down to one and the same.

    @sureiam

    Funny, I have made it a habit since years to always ask frontup whether additional single IPs are available and how much they cost. I'd suggest to do the same.

  • @bsdguy said:

    @hzr said:

    Funny, I have made it a habit since years to always ask frontup whether additional single IPs are available and how much they cost. I'd suggest to do the same.

    I did. At the time it was told to me $5 a month per extra IP. Several years later now and they No longer honor that. Fortunately they still honor my monthly service rate. ( something speedykvm and Incero believe is impossible )

    Thanked by 1bugrakoc
  • Are you familiar with IP consumption and the scary IPv4 exhaustion doomsday scenario? Wow man, nobody is trying to rip you off or do anything new. Providers have to be smart about IP address usage because if they don't acquire IPs as their company grows, some companies have to stop accepting new orders.

  • @doughmanes said:
    Are you familiar with IP consumption and the scary IPv4 exhaustion doomsday scenario? Wow man, nobody is trying to rip you off or do anything new. Providers have to be smart about IP address usage because if they don't acquire IPs as their company grows, some companies have to stop accepting new orders.

    So, how exactly is it smart to throw away 3 out of 8 IPs for small subnets? That's more than 1/3 waste.

  • @bsdguy said:
    So, how exactly is it smart to throw away 3 out of 8 IPs for small subnets? That's more than 1/3 waste.

    Its better then throw 3 of 4 ips or try to sell 13IPs at once

  • ryanarpryanarp Member, Patron Provider
    edited February 2018

    @sureiam said:

    @bsdguy said:

    @hzr said:

    Funny, I have made it a habit since years to always ask frontup whether additional single IPs are available and how much they cost. I'd suggest to do the same.

    Fortunately they still honor my monthly service rate. ( something speedykvm and Incero believe is impossible )

    I feel this was a needless jab. Did you experience this rare occurance or just contributing to the toxic environment of LET by stating your opinions as facts?

  • @ryanarp said:

    @sureiam said:

    @bsdguy said:

    @hzr said:

    Funny, I have made it a habit since years to always ask frontup whether additional single IPs are available and how much they cost. I'd suggest to do the same.

    Fortunately they still honor my monthly service rate. ( something speedykvm and Incero believe is impossible )

    I feel this was a needless jab. Did you experience this rare occurance or just contributing to the toxic environment of LET by stating your opinions as facts?

    I'm stating after two conversations with incero and speedy kvm staff. Where my polite and professional questions were met with a snarky response both times.

    I asked first in regards to a KVM if I would be able to renew it for the same rate after the 36 month term. For which I was told:

    There's no guarantee what's going to happen in the next three years.

    -speedykvm

    Ok well I guess that's pretty clear. So then I spoke with incero staff for dedicated servers and was given a much more harsh response to the tune of no one can possibly assure the same rate after 36 months and any company that has can't possibly be as reliable as incero... Well all my hosts do and frankly they are in the best and most expensive datacenters in the world with the best backbone. If they've given me the same rate for the past 5+ years and assured me I'm grandfathered for as long as I keep my service I imagine speedy kvm can on a kvm and incero can for the life of a dedicated box. ESPECIALLY if I'm offering to pre-pay 36 months at a time up front!

    The incero Jab at LET came months later and just reminded me how little interest or faith I had working with them. They could have the best hardware in the world but if they can't even talk professionally to a potential SERIOUS customer or assure that my rates won't sky rocket (they wouldn't even agree to a capped potential increase!) I'm just going to move on. If I can get these assurance from hosts in top tier datacenters than I would imagine incero couls do the same for their home base Dallas center... Nope apparently grandfathering in rates for customers agreeing to consecutive prepaid 36 month terms is ludicrous.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    A /32 can technically be routed to the main IP and work without any issues on the assumption it’s an additional IP only.

  • ryanarpryanarp Member, Patron Provider

    @sureiam said:

    @ryanarp said:

    @sureiam said:

    @bsdguy said:

    @hzr said:

    Funny, I have made it a habit since years to always ask frontup whether additional single IPs are available and how much they cost. I'd suggest to do the same.

    Fortunately they still honor my monthly service rate. ( something speedykvm and Incero believe is impossible )

    I feel this was a needless jab. Did you experience this rare occurance or just contributing to the toxic environment of LET by stating your opinions as facts?

    I'm stating after two conversations with incero and speedy kvm staff. Where my polite and professional questions were met with a snarky response both times.

    I asked first in regards to a KVM if I would be able to renew it for the same rate after the 36 month term. For which I was told:

    There's no guarantee what's going to happen in the next three years.

    -speedykvm

    Ok well I guess that's pretty clear. So then I spoke with incero staff for dedicated servers and was given a much more harsh response to the tune of no one can possibly assure the same rate after 36 months and any company that has can't possibly be as reliable as incero... Well all my hosts do and frankly they are in the best and most expensive datacenters in the world with the best backbone. If they've given me the same rate for the past 5+ years and assured me I'm grandfathered for as long as I keep my service I imagine speedy kvm can on a kvm and incero can for the life of a dedicated box. ESPECIALLY if I'm offering to pre-pay 36 months at a time up front!

    The incero Jab at LET came months later and just reminded me how little interest or faith I had working with them. They could have the best hardware in the world but if they can't even talk professionally to a potential SERIOUS customer or assure that my rates won't sky rocket (they wouldn't even agree to a capped potential increase!) I'm just going to move on. If I can get these assurance from hosts in top tier datacenters than I would imagine incero couls do the same for their home base Dallas center... Nope apparently grandfathering in rates for customers agreeing to consecutive prepaid 36 month terms is ludicrous.

    Understood you live in a fairy tale. Thanks for continuing to justify their TOS.

  • sureiamsureiam Member
    edited February 2018

    @ryanarp said:
    Understood you live in a fairy tale. Thanks for continuing to justify their TOS.

    See that's what I'm talking about. Who do you guys think you are? Incero's Dallas datacenter isn't the most expensive location or facility. It's costs are unlikely to increase dramatically and it's far from the most expensive. It's not even a digital realty facility.

    The cost of a KVM is unlikely to rise either as computer hardware decreases in cost. That's why every year we are offered more and more specs for less in price. So to request a lock in price on a KVM prepaid in 3 year increments it's actually against my best interest as pricing should DECREASE for the same specs. Yet incero and speedykvm feel that's lunacy? What world do you guys live in where your Dallas datacenter goes up in price and your hardware values increase with age?

    Then we get to the dedicated servers. Requesting a locked in price for the life of a servers hardware is literally the most reasonable request one could make. The extended life of a server is roughly 5-9 years max. However you purchase it once and the profit return is within 2-3 years. So the second prepaid 36 month renewal is all profit hardware wise for incero. Yet they want to try and increase pricing? Come on now...

    Your statements might work on the businessmen that don't know the industry but anyone that knows what their talking about will just see your statements and attitude as arrogant and outright greedy. The only positive is that we know outright what we would be dealing with as customers and can avoid it.

    The host in question for this thread? Well they might have gone from 1 IP for $5 to 5 IPs for $15 but they never once even hesitated when i asked if my rate would be locked in. 5 years on and it's the same price. So you can take your smug we can jack up rates whenever your term ends attitude elsewhere.

    Thanked by 1bugrakoc
  • ryanarpryanarp Member, Patron Provider

    Sounds good, you should go with them :)

  • hzrhzr Member
    edited February 2018

    sureiam said: Then we get to the dedicated servers. Requesting a locked in price for the life of a servers hardware is literally the most reasonable request one could make.

    I can assure you it is not in any way reasonable.

    I do B2B crap all the time, and it is definitely not a normal thing. If you want a locked in price for the life of hardware, you sign a contract for the full duration and the contract will most definitely have provisions for things like annual increase caps based on inflation and stuff like that.

    If you want your locked in pricing for however long you want it locked in, you use a legal contract and you pay in advance. Hardware is not the only cost. People need to get paid too, wages do go up, power costs go up.

    A reasonable thing would be having an email thread asking about arranging a situation like this, not "give me $x for life no matter what"

    Thanked by 2ryanarp Clouvider
  • @hzr said:

    sureiam said: Then we get to the dedicated servers. Requesting a locked in price for the life of a servers hardware is literally the most reasonable request one could make.

    I can assure you it is not in any way reasonable.

    I do B2B crap all the time, and it is definitely not a normal thing. If you want a locked in price for the life of hardware, you sign a contract for the full duration and the contract will most definitely have provisions for things like annual increase caps based on inflation and stuff like that.

    If you want your locked in pricing for however long you want it locked in, you use a legal contract and you pay in advance. Hardware is not the only cost. People need to get paid too, wages do go up, power costs go up.

    A reasonable thing would be having an email thread asking about arranging a situation like this, not "give me $x for life no matter what"

    "Wages do go up, power costs go up.."

    Not quite as simple as you put it, it's been well documented that in the past 5 years the price of labor in the state of Texas where their data center is located has increased marginally almost not even worth mentioning. Not to mention the cost of their power has DECREASED as the state of Texas is highly competitive in power utilities. So when their cost of running their business goes down should we expect a decrease in our cost of services? Ya not gonna happen.

    So I repeat, requesting a locked in price for the life of the server hardware (not even requesting it remain the same when upgrades are required) is extremely reasonable especially when it's concerning Incerno and their specific datacenter and costs of business.

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Host Rep

    For the most part I agree with you. Hardware and networking prices tend to fall over time, and generally the increase in labor, rent or electricity will not be so much that your server rent needs to go up.

    But it's not always possible and if you are not willing to commit to them, it's not completely unreasonable for them to commit to you.

    It's unlikely the price will rise but you never know the circumstances.

Sign In or Register to comment.