Dedicated IP

[cryptocasinoscc]

I have been using dedicated ip for my https://cryptocasinos.cc site at my old Hosting Provider (on shared hosting plan). I have moved to a new provider around a month ago with shared hosting plan again and requested to assign a dedicated IP but they refused me to do so by the reason of "shortage of IPs". I have insisted on the issue and waiting for the decision.

What I kindly ask you is "Do you have dedicated IP for your site(s)?" and if your answers is "yes" then "have you been benefiting from it in terms of SEO?"

As far as I know it is useful for the following factors:

• More stability
• Less downtime
• SEO benefits

Thanks in advance for your contributions.

[Progger]

Hey..

This is nonsese....seo myth nr.4234215 ....
Here is only one real point behind this story, if u get a IP from a spammer - this could be a disadvantage.

Regards

[FictionNet]

Been through this countless times. Some hosts do. Some hosts don't. There's a scrap of paper in front of me with 10 hosts on there - only one (iso/vida) don't do ded IPs. The rest will, for a fee. Usually costs $/€/£20-40 annual except Pickaweb who want a whopping £120.

Gate.com will do it for $20. Basic shared hosting is $50. Depends how much you want to pay for the hosting itself.

[cryptocasinoscc]

Hey..

This is nonsese....seo myth nr.4234215 ....
Here is only one real point behind this story, if u get a IP from a spammer - this could be a disadvantage.

Regards

Thanks but I am not sure about that because most of the ranked sites have dedicated IPs. And it has a logic behind it. I am stills earching for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[cryptocasinoscc]

Been through this countless times. Some hosts do. Some hosts don't. There's a scrap of paper in front of me with 10 hosts on there - only one (iso/vida) don't do ded IPs. The rest will, for a fee. Usually costs $/€/£20-40 annual except Pickaweb who want a whopping £120.

Gate.com will do it for $20. Basic shared hosting is $50. Depends how much you want to pay for the hosting itself.

Thanks. So, do you think that it is useful?

Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[FictionNet]

Thanks. So, do you think that it is useful?

Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Maybe. Yes. No. Perhaps. Probably. Honestly? I don't know if it makes a diff but it's probably small unless your site is sharing it's home with a porn site. I get ded IPs it for some sites, not for others. For the sake of $20, I'll take it if the site is semi-important to me. Peace of mind for $20? I'll take it, even if it's a placebo.

Even if there's no actual, proven difference, there's something 'nice' I find about being able to reach my site by typing just its IP.

[Progger]

Thanks but I am not sure about that because most of the ranked sites have dedicated IPs. And it has a logic behind it. I am stills earching for it.

The logic ? Bigger page = More Cash = Bigger Server = Dedicated Server

With a dedicated server,u will get a static IP...if u want or not...

[universal4]

See this review
https://interviews.slashdot.org/stor...ogle-questions

5) Google and IP address.
by Anonymous Coward

Why in this day and age does google continue to penalize sites that are virtual hosted? With ip addresses becoming harder to get/justify every day why does google discount the relevance of links that don't come from a unique ip address. Please don't just deny it, I think the Internet community deserves an explanation.

Craig:
I can't just deny it? What are my other choices? [] Actually, Google handles virtually hosted domains and their links just the same as domains on unique IP addresses. If your ISP does virtual hosting correctly, you'll never see a difference between the two cases. We do see a small percentage of ISPs every month that misconfigure their virtual hosting, which might account for this persistent misperception--thanks for giving me the chance to dispel a myth!

I bolded the part in red that is most appropriate to this discussion

Even though Google stated as far back as 2002 it was a myth, seowannabe's have been pushing the myth since before that time.

Rick
Universal4

[Sherlock]

I do not trust what Google says. I am almost sure they lie a lot of what has to be done and what does not have to be done. It makes sense for them to lie and have popcorn.

I do not think unique IP address matters that much, but I am having them. 1 usd/month is nothing. I understand that people say this is bullshit, but it is really low money, even when I have a lot of domains (and I want to distinguish them ofc). It cost me even more because I tried to have different C and B classes. It was not proven it works, but I keep the sites separated.

Anyways it has absolutely nothing to do with

• More stability
• Less downtime

If you want this go for CDN solutions. It is might be even the opposite. You can hide the sites under the balancer (1 IP) and then you have more stability etc.


The only questionable impact here is for SEO.

[cryptocasinoscc]

I see Rick. Thanks a lot. So, no need to have it then. Cheers

[cryptocasinoscc]

I agree with you Sherlock. Google uses Matt Cutts for these kinds of manipulations I think. But I still do not know if it has an effect on SEO. But it worths keeping the dedicated IPs as they are really low cost. That is why I have been insisting on it from webhosting.uk.com company but they are not fulfilling my request.

[DanHorvat]

I got two VPS servers and one dedicated server. Most of my sites share IPs but for some I purchased a dedicated IP for €1/month. Bargain.

It seems to me that all my sites benefit from not being on the same IP with spam sites (which are the majority of sites in existence). I think my sites are ranking better because of it.

If anything, the IP doesn't find itself in the email blacklist because someone else is sending spam from it.

Shared hosting sucks on so many levels. Even if you only got 1 site, get a VPS.

[cryptocasinoscc]

Thanks, DonHorvat

But what about "CDN" then?

They all share the same IP for numerous sites.

Cheers!

I got two VPS servers and one dedicated server. Most of my sites share IPs but for some I purchased a dedicated IP for €1/month. Bargain.

It seems to me that all my sites benefit from not being on the same IP with spam sites (which are the majority of sites in existence). I think my sites are ranking better because of it.

If anything, the IP doesn't find itself in the email blacklist because someone else is sending spam from it.

Shared hosting sucks on so many levels. Even if you only got 1 site, get a VPS.

[DanHorvat]

Thanks, DonHorvat

But what about "CDN" then?

They all share the same IP for numerous sites.

Dan.

Not sure about CDNs, didn't give this too much thought. Maybe someone else can give insight into what actually happens with CDNs. If you have a CDN on a website, is the IP of the website the server IP or the CDN IP? The traffic is routed through a CDN but it eventually ends up on your server. This is an interesting question.

[cryptocasinoscc]

I am more than sure there are people in this forum who are experienced enough to give the exact answer.

As far as I know, the site gets the IP of the CDN and IPs would become identical.

Cheers

Dan.

Not sure about CDNs, didn't give this too much thought. Maybe someone else can give insight into what actually happens with CDNs. If you have a CDN on a website, is the IP of the website the server IP or the CDN IP? The traffic is routed through a CDN but it eventually ends up on your server. This is an interesting question.

[Malikbhai]

Dedicated IP is mandatory for a dedicated SSL. If a web host says no; then you need to move to another. Only small reseller web hosts have such problems.

As far as the SEO goes, there isn't any impact. Google does not work that way.

Like a few users said above, a VPS, or a dedicated server will usually give you an IP.

Cloudflare provides free SSL. Most websites should be using them as a default anyways.

[universal4]

All IP's (IPv4) are already acquired and there are no more to give out. (all have been leased/provisioned to ISP's)

It actually happened years ago, but as of spring 2018, even ISP's usually can't get more routed to them.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0..._ipv4_address/

If there are only a little over 4 billion addresses, is it logical to assume there can never be more then 4 billion websites?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion

Rick
Universal4

[Sherlock]

If there are only a little over 4 billion addresses, is it logical to assume there can never be more then 4 billion websites?

If there are only a little over 4 billion addresses, is it logical to assume there can never be more then 4 billion websites on dedicated IPs.

[cryptocasinoscc]

If there are only a little over 4 billion addresses, is it logical to assume there can never be more then 4 billion websites on dedicated IPs.

Your counter argument sounds logical to me Sherlock. Internet is endless


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Sherlock]

also the limit is just on IPV4, which will be discarded when really needed
my friend has at least several hundreds of thousands of unused IPs for example (do not ask me for details rather), I am just trying to say that if the IPs are all allocated, that does not mean they are used and that they are used in a way that has an economical sense... there are a lot of organisations who had IPs assigned, but they never used them and many times they do not have even a clue what to do or what they have...RIPE has to care, but they are just another paralyzed corporation