Howdy, Stranger!

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


One IPv4 Per Website?
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.

One IPv4 Per Website?

nyxynyxnyxynyx Member
edited January 2020 in General

Hello,

If you are hosting multiple websites on the same dedicated server, is it advisable to have a different IPv4 address for each website or webapp?

What are the reasons for and against having 1 IP address per website, other than costs? A reverse proxy like nginx will allow multiple domain names to be pointed to a single IP address.

Also, if you are hosting a database server on the same machine as your websites/webapps, will you give the database server its own IP address as well?

Thank you for any insights.

Comments

  • Probing for blog content?

    Thanked by 1nyxynyx
  • nyxynyxnyxynyx Member
    edited January 2020

    @AlwaysSkint said:
    Probing for blog content?

    I have always been on DO, GCP and AWS where each app/website/database gets its own tiny $5-10/mo VPS and its own IPv4.

    Just got my first dedicated server and they offer 4 usable IPv4, so this got me wondering how I should be using them.

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    Probing for blog content.

    Thanked by 1nyxynyx
  • JordJord Moderator, Host Rep

    As far as I've seen Google doesn't really care about IP's as long as you don't post all the same thing on the same IP. Google has ways to detect a great website through all the crap.

    It will cost you a lot for IPv4, everyone says Class C IP's are best for SEO but again from what I've seen Google doesn't really care. But if you want to separate websites then it can be done.

    No your applications/websites would reach your DB server via localhost or 127.0.0.1 and not a routable IP address.

    Thanked by 1nyxynyx
  • JordJord Moderator, Host Rep

    IPs for SSL won't hold up either anymore since web servers support SNI so multiple websites on one IP can all have their own SSL Cert.

  • If you needed to support XP, you needed one IP per website because XP didn't support SNI. Something like that. Maybe the same for basic embedded devices.

    Thanked by 1nyxynyx
  • JordJord Moderator, Host Rep
    edited January 2020

    SNI is prem these days, but then again who cares about supporting people on Windows XP? :joy:

    Thanked by 1nyxynyx
  • @TimboJones said:
    If you needed to support XP, you needed one IP per website because XP didn't support SNI. Something like that. Maybe the same for basic embedded devices.

    Windows 7 is now end of life and they still talk about windows XP support....
    nobody should support XP, everyone just thinking about that should lose his job now. You should start thinking about supporting QUIC and already have TLS1.3 and be on the https preload list.

    Thanked by 2nyxynyx boernd
  • JordJord Moderator, Host Rep

    user54321 said: You should start thinking about supporting QUIC and already have TLS1.3 and be on the https preload list.

    Already got it enabled :D

    Thanked by 1nyxynyx
  • marvelmarvel Member
    edited January 2020

    I would just use one IP. You don't need a reverse proxy btw. Just virtual hosting will do. It works out of the box with NGINX and Apache. You don't have to configure anything except for the server name and that's it.

    The only use case I see for a different IP is when you need reverse DNS for your mail server. Then again since the IP shortage providers probably look more at SPF/DKIM and even if you do need reverse DNS you can use IPv6 for most of your traffic to the big e-mail providers, Hotmail, Google etc.

    One IP for every website is just a waste of IPs imho.

    Btw if you host the database on the same server you would normally only bind it to localhost (127.0.0.1). Unless you need external access but I would still use the same IP since it runs on another port than the web server.

    Thanked by 1nyxynyx
  • hzrhzr Member

    TimboJones said: If you needed to support XP, you needed one IP per website because XP didn't support SNI. Something like that. Maybe the same for basic embedded devices.

    Note that this only means XP's own crypto stack, like IE on XP. Firefox on XP supports SNI just fine.

  • Jord said: IPs for SSL won't hold up either anymore since web servers support SNI so multiple websites on one IP can all have their own SSL Cert.

    Came here to say this piece. Thanks you beat me

    Thanked by 2nyxynyx Jord
  • 1st article written. ;)

    Thanked by 2dahartigan nyxynyx
  • @Jord said:
    SNI is prem these days, but then again who cares about supporting people on Windows XP? :joy:

    First thought, doesn't India and China still have millions of XP users?

    I've got several dozen headless low end machines (P4's) with 512-1024MB RAM on 40-80GB HDD's with real physical serial ports for, let's say, a "media application". The application in question hasn't been updated in 12 years and changes in Win7 (security and updates wise) makes pushing updates to these boxes more of a hassle. I wasn't expecting this service/setup to be running in 2020, though. Just not worth the hassle to swap out functioning computers that are 10-15 years old, they're not drawing enough power to spend $$$ on new hardware.

    Thanked by 1nyxynyx
  • @TimboJones said:

    @Jord said:
    SNI is prem these days, but then again who cares about supporting people on Windows XP? :joy:

    First thought, doesn't India and China still have millions of XP users?

    ok so lets see https://www.w3counter.com/trends market share of non sni clients 0%. So even if there are millions of XP users, they don't use browsers which don't support SNI. Actually webbrowsing with a browser without SNI is pretty much impossible in 2020 because most websites are broken for you.

    Thanked by 1nyxynyx
  • @nyxynyx said:

    @AlwaysSkint said:
    Probing for blog content?

    I have always been on DO, GCP and AWS where each app/website/database gets its own tiny $5-10/mo VPS and its own IPv4.

    Just got my first dedicated server and they offer 4 usable IPv4, so this got me wondering how I should be using them.

    How about : https://turnkeyinternet.net/seo-hosting/

    Dedicated IPv4: 10 Unique A, B, C Classes ($14.9/m)

    *good for link building ?

    Thanked by 1nyxynyx
  • @isunbejo said:
    How about : https://turnkeyinternet.net/seo-hosting/

    Dedicated IPv4: 10 Unique A, B, C Classes ($14.9/m)

    *good for link building ?

    Wonder if anyone tested the limits of their "unlimited SSD storage".

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    Jord said: SNI is prem these days, but then again who cares about supporting people on Windows XP?

    Fine, but Putin won't be reading your blog.

    Thanked by 2nyxynyx TimboJones
  • SplitIceSplitIce Member, Host Rep

    Usually not needed, although there are reasons when such a setup may be advisable for example (but not limited to):
    - DDoS risk
    - Separation of adult and non / adult content or other incompatible industries
    - Separation of sites that may be banned in Authoritarian Regimes, or illegal in some jurisdictions.

    Reasons that are 99% BS most of the time:
    - SEO
    - "Security"

    Thanked by 2nyxynyx OBHost_MO
  • @nyxynyx said:

    @isunbejo said:
    How about : https://turnkeyinternet.net/seo-hosting/

    Dedicated IPv4: 10 Unique A, B, C Classes ($14.9/m)

    *good for link building ?

    Wonder if anyone tested the limits of their "unlimited SSD storage".

    unlimited SSD storage is marketing joke :smiley:

    Thanked by 1nyxynyx
Sign In or Register to comment.