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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
How is this a moral argument? A technology has reached its capacity, and now this will force the market to shift to a newer technology (IPv6 in this case).
I remember reading that if you host multiple sites, and they share an IP address, then search engines award less weight to the links between them. Call it an extravagance, sure, but it's not snake oil.
It's generally worth noting in life that just because you find something distasteful, it is not necessarily immoral. They're not sacrificing goats to Satan under the full moon, they're just selling a product that they came by legitimately. If you disagree with their business model, don't buy from them.
If a company, or Individual is knowingly holding a large amount of IPv4, Then for sure, It's down to the morals of them to either release them back to the RIR, (There is the alternative which is v6, but full compatibility of v6 is a while away.) Which we all know anyone with a large allocation isn't just going to hand over IPv4 without a price tag.
B2? , Got BF3?
@Taz_NinjaHawk Turnkeyinternet.net is doing this as well: http://www.turnkeyinternet.net/seo-hosting/
Ideal for all kinds of people who want to SPAM the web with landing pages, misspelled domains and so on. Did I mention SPAM? Oh, they will turn a blind eye to that as well.
I wonder why ARIN doesn't take away their IP addresses.
There's this pesky little thing some people have called foresight, it's what generally puts you ahead of the pack when competing in a saturated market. Clearly they have a business model that requires tons of IPs, and as such have invested in this to ensure the ongoing viability of their business.
There is nothing immoral about investing in the future of your business to keep a competitive advantage.
This whole thread really is about "IP Address Socialism." Certain providers wanting to take from others what they were either to late to the party for or didn't have the foresight to invest in it so now they want it stripped from others and redistributed.
ARIN is probably smart enough to realize that spam will not magically cease to exist just because they screw over one SEO company. There are probably even people at ARIN smart enough to realize that spam will not magically disappear even if they screw over every SEO company.
The solution is implementing IPv6, not going on a witch hunt for IPv4 addresses.
Yeah, this. It's not so much, "How dare you!" but more of a, "Really?...
"
Heh, my plan is to close the doors, take care of what I've got, and ride it out if it ends up getting real bad. Sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better, and sometimes it's just another y2k bug. Bad time to be a new provider if it gets bad, but that's all just part of the business. They aren't going to give them up, and I wouldn't either.
@Soylent You're most likely right, but I was thinking of a solution for the moment. It seems like IPv6 is all over the place and everyone's dragging their feet when it comes to it. Also, I kind of fail to see the "SEO" part of this. Google has changed their algorithms again and again, and is continuing to do so. Google, Bing, and maybe Yahoo have engineers that are pretty smart and resources far beyond your typical hosting provider.
Indeed, you probably read it in other threads in various forums debunking this myth that has been invalid since about 1999, search engines got smarter.
Anyway, it is an old argument.
My real opinion:
Snake oil, no value, selling based on a myth based in old now invalid facts to the gullible and desperate, does not comply with any ARIN/RIPE justifications and the fact that they are toothless does not make it right.
Anyone that buys them based on this probably deserves the lower bank balance for zero returns, but at the end of the day I don't really care and will probably have forgotten this thread in a day or so, I just want to point out that my argument has nothing to do with the fact they have more IP's than me or anyone else it is the fact they are selling a lie.
Now if anyone wants to provide 3 verifiable case studies showing that this method works published in the last lets say 3 years (good luck with that) without trying to be clever or a smart ass to prove a point, then I bow down to the SEO IP's gods and Inception Hosting will be hosted on one within a month.
SEO and different ip addresses have nothing in common. So using ips for this purpose is pure waste - nothing business smart about it.
So be it then. I suppose it matters more in the context of having a single IP for your own sites, rather than sharing an IP with god-knows-who?
Probably 50% of all SEO "consulting" involves lowering your bank balance for zero return.
It still doesn't bother me. They have the IPs. It's a business, even if you disagree with it, and it's not doing any harm to anyone. Anyone willing to lay down that kind of money for a server already has an idea what they want to do with the IPs.
The fix is still simple.
at aseohosting.com you can get upto 550 ips with a shared hosting account
It is hurting people that need ipv4 addresses - and it's strictly against all RIR policy as well.
These fools will feel the pain once everybody starts handing out free /64s on IPv6 (which already happens)
Who cares?
Us whining about it here won't do a thing, who are we to whine anyway when the UK's Public work or some other ministry has a whole /8 sitting for no reason?
Herp derp, we've had our fun, move on. It works out for them, good for them. Anything our whining will do? No.
Slightly incorrect. It don't hurt people that need IPv4 addresses. We got them. It hurt people which sell service with IPv4 addresses. Sellers. Host on pillory this momen is just another seller which do this since 1997 or so as their page says and wayback machine confirm. Only difference is that they have this what some newer hosts would like to have. As simple as that. Or you personally would say no to cheap or free /20, /19, /18, /17.. right now just because you can't really use it and your ownerhsip would hurt other HOSTS?
I think many here got hung up on the wording "SEO Hosting", what you get is a dedi with alot of IP .. use it as you please.
anyone recognize this ?
4 x 1TB Hard Drives
32GB RAM
10TB Bandwidth
100Mbit Port
/26 Range (62 IPs)
You coulöd use above for vps hoting, but also your own SEO Hosting .... your choice.
They actually advertise it as "SEO Hosting" and with many "Unique C-Classes"
Because they're selling to a particular niche. It's their business model. If they were selling the servers specifically for VPS hosting they'd have the exact same ad, but they'd word it differently.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/316071,uks-ipv4-stocks-not-for-sale.aspx
I'm not sure what the problem is there if it doesn't need to be publicly routable, but again, crying over individual /8s is a waste of time. Again: THE FIX IS SIMPLE.
But then we have to buy v6 compatible switches, which costs more money...
This is what I ment
Thanks
Indeed, was just trying to say that us crying here accomplishes nothing.
@Wintereise we discuss, share opinion, etc.. that's why this site exist ;-) I agree with you about IPv4 but thread itself isn't for accomplishing something, just for discussion and introducing different views which is most of the time cool.
To rage valiantly against not much of anything to whomever will halfway listen. :P