Forum Moderators: phranque
Because somebody biffed on the server config. :) Has happened to me a few times, sometimes helped, other times hurt. So for that, it's just sort of a CYA kind of thing.
When you've got a static IP, the hosting company simply can't make that mistake - he he.
I've consistenly heard that this is extremely rare, and would only be used as a last resort.
Also there are pretty serious considerations to be made by doing so.... do you mean a whole class C?
Also there are pretty serious considerations to be made by doing so.... do you mean a whole class C?
Probably. But you must really piss them off to get banned by IP :)
When you've got a static IP, the hosting company simply can't make that mistake - he he.
I've never seen a hosting company that hosts sites on dynamic IP's :)
I know a few spammers that host on dial-ups, but that's about it :)
Of course, it is somewhat safer to have a site on a dedicated IP, just in case the client messes up host header in the request.
And those mess-ups you keep hearing about are not really mess-ups. Those are done on purpose to boost ranks of some sites, either owned or partnered by your hosts.
As I understand it, hosting companies pay for blocks of IPs. Offering virtual hosting to unwary customers allows many accounts per IP and saves them money. All of the quality hosts I've dealt with offer a dedicated IP option, some for a small extra cost, often a one time cost. One more expensive (but otherwise excellent) hosting company didn't know what virtual hosting was when I asked about a dedicated IP! I like that!
According to what I've read, IP addresses may soon be in short supply. Virtual hosting extends the number of domains that can be handled by that limited supply.
If memory serves, Brett's remarks stemmed from a period when many spiders just couldn't handle virtual domains. Most do presently, but there was a period when W3C upgraded the HTTP protocol to recoginze virtual domains, and browsers, servers and spiders all needed to upgrade.
Personally, I insist on a dedicated IP when selecting hosting to avoid potential banning problems and mis-configuration problems, at least for a site that I want to be around for the long term.
So, my take on this thread is that I'd be safe to start off with shared hosting to see how well the venture goes but when it looks like it's a winner, it's time to move up into the dedicated IP service. Fair assessment?
Re: shared hosting provider: I know and trust my shared hosting provider. They've done right by me to date.
Since you can buy quality hosting on a dedicated IP for the same price as virtual with careful shopping, I say, "Why wouldn't you?"
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!
There's quite a bit of disinformation about IP addresses in this thread.
Which parts do you consider incorrect?
All the sites that I run are Virtual hosted and thanks to this place they all perform well on Google.
Most of it. But, I don't want to pick on any individuals. The part about there being no difference as far as Google is concerned is correct. Other than that, you should disregard pretty much everything that you've read on this thread and visit ARIN's site to understand the IP addresses.
I am familiar with ARIN and the IP addressing system but was just curious as to what your particular issue was. ;)
Forgot this - thanks for the info Dante.
[edited by: lorax at 4:13 pm (utc) on Dec. 24, 2002]
For example:
dis·in·for·ma·tion P Pronunciation Key (ds-nfr-mshn)
n.Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation
I assumed that you meant erroneous information. I don't believe that anyone here is trying to "deliberately mislead."
Accuracy before egos! :)
