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.
2GB Guaranteed RAM with 40-50 IPs. Looking for ~$50 USD.
paroxsitic
Member
Right now I have a dedicated Pentium 4 server with 2GB SDRAM and 64 IPs for $90.
I am looking for dedicated or VPS. If VPS, I would prefer a VPS that you can't oversell very easily.
It's not unheard of for some VPS providers to provide IPs for $0.50 each when you buy in bulk, and 2GB Guaranteed RAM can be had for sub $25 - as I have seen before. I am not sure if LowEndBox.com only discusses super cheap (sub $7) but I would consider this "low end" for the specs I require. Any suggestions would be helpful.
My current P4 Dedicated server specs:
dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=64k count=16k conv=fdatasync 16384+0 records in 16384+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 50.9846 s, 21.1 MB/s
Comments
@paroxsitic LowEndalk.com is a sister site (per say) to LowEndBox.com which highlights providers with VPS offers pricing under $7 USD. Discussions about VPS offers in the $50USD range are not exactly pertinent discussion in a forum related to sub-$7USD VPS. I'd say your thread better belongs in the VPS section of WHT (webhostingtalk.com) than here.
Also, I hope you have a good reason to need 50 IPV4s. No one is going to sell you that many IPs without a really good reason anymore given IPV4 exhaustion.
May we know what is your justification for having 50 ipv4 addresses on one VPS?
I think burstnet can provide you with the VPS you are looking for (except maybe for the "not heavily oversold" part), but they should ask you for justification for the IPs too.
Yeah I was asking looking at burst.net. I host chat software from 1995 that runs on port 9998. Each server requires a new IP. They don't have any internal routing like apache where I can define virtual hosts within 1 IP. I have never had an issue getting justification from the 4 other hosts I've been with.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=623567
Deja Vu!
Sounds almost like a dream... haha But maybe, if a company has 50 IPs available.. at 1 dolar each, probably your 50 bucks can afford a $10 vps
@paroxsitic - I might be able to get you close to where you need to be. When you get a chance get in touch with me.
we can set you up Xeon 3050 / E6500 Dual Core 66 IP's 2GB ram 250GB HDD 5TB bandwidth $85/mo pm me and we will get you set up.
@daimonb Can I get this deal?? I don't need that many IP's
offer is good for all leb & let members just register @ billing.dmbhosting.co.uk/register.php and raise a support ticket stating offer if it becomes popular we will setup direct order link
FTFY
So instead of giving them 64 IP's in a /26, you'll need to use a /25 and trash a ton.
Honestly, I think you should rather invest in that software of yours and get it to work with less IPs.
People are not taking IPv4 Exhaustion seriously. This to me is wastage of IP.
@ francisco Your VPS will come with 1 to start. You may purchase more by opening a ticket with billing at a price of $1/ea/month. At this time there is no limit on how many IP's a single VPS can have.
taken directly from your own website,
do you not think we accounted for the cost for the ip's within the quote?
Honestly as a company i understand the ipv4 situation however please tell me what the difference is if i sell 64 ip's to 1 person or 1 ip to 64 people as long as there is justification.
it's easier to hand justification to ARIN/RIPE if you have 64 different names than a single name. What happens is that they then want justification for every IP that said person has.
So you're not including 66 ip's, you're just doing 1 and they can 'buy upwards of' ? seems pretty retarded no?
of course it may be easier to justify individual names however if justification is valid then there is no issue. and the offer stated includes 66 ip's thats why the price is what it is and not the price issued on our site. Seriously cant understand why you are aiming the situation at us, we are purely responding to a request surely if a client asked you for the same thing you would not turn him away?
At least they didn't ask for the IP addresses within different ranges.
@drmike we would not help if that were the case. I agree with above comment though why not just update the software used to one that does not rely so heavily on the different ip's.
Yeah, that software sucks xD
Im still eagerly waiting for the moment when ARIN will step up and take legal action against the selling of IPs. Until now they are just producing a load of legal papers on the subject that IPs are not a property right.
Not going to happen, they have no standing either.
None of these organizations who "run" the internet have any real backbone. I lost a domain a few years back to a German techno band who, even though their use of the name was predated by my usage, still convinced a German judge to sign a court order telling a certain domain registrar to transfer it.
ICANN never even responded to my complaint.
Gave some serious thought to running for their board.
Can you not run some sort of reverse proxy which routes to a load of internal IPs?
The software is located at www.thepalace.com, back in 98 the 1995 project was open sourced, but the 1998 code varies a lot. No one has made an effort to reverse engineer it to allow anything similar to a routing system.
I have asked many linux/programming forums but they don't ever lead to any solution. If you know of a way to redirect traffic by means of some sort of C wrapper for the software then let me know.
So far the best solution is burst.net - I will be looking into them shortly.
Now I'm by no means an expert on iptables and stuff like that, but if I recall correctly all IPs in the 127.x.x.x range are loopback addresses, and you can use iptables to forward from one external IP & port to another port on your server. Would it not be possible to cook up something in terms of binding each chat server to a different loopback IP and then using the iptables forward functionality to make different external ports go to different loopback addresses?
I have no idea if the above is even technically possible, just a random 'brainfart' so to say.
Interesting joe...but I am not sure
@joepie91
The problem is routing internally, its having 1 IP and 1 Port distinguish itself internally. Sure you could have 1.2.3.4:80 goto 127.0.0.1:98 and 1.2.3.4:81 goto 127.0.0.1:102 but you can't have 1.2.3.4:80 goto both 127.0.0.1:98 and 1.2.3.4:81 using name-based virtual hosts. The program uses TCP, not HTTP and the HOST header is never sent, there is no way the program knows what URL the client used, therefore you have to use an IP for every instance of the software as the client will only attempt to connect on port 9998.
Could you make a wrapper for the client to make it connect to a specific port?
@paroxsitic
Ah, I suppose I misunderstood the issue. I thought the issue was that the server couldn't bind to any port other 9998... but if that's also a hardcoded setting in the client that you can't get around, you can't do much with my solution I suppose
Does the client work over ipv6?