Dedicated IP Addresses Not Necessary

Tagged in

Matt Cutts of Google busted a myth regarding to dedicated IP address for websites. No, your website will not be penalised, nor rewarded, for being on a named-based virtual hosting, or on its own dedicated IP address.

Links to virtually hosted domains are treated the same as links to domains on dedicated IP addresses.

Funny that when you go and shop for dedicated servers or even VPS, you’ll find providers giving you “unlimited IP addresses” as long as you can justify it. What are other reasons people need more than one IP addresses for their web servers?

  • HTTPS. As SSL certificate is transmitted before HTTP transaction starts, you can’t send back different certificates depending on name-based virtual hosting.
  • Blacklisting. Maybe not Google, but other search engines. What if another site on the same IP is blocked the countries with censorship, like China? Will your site be affected?
  • Ethics. If you are running a church website, you don’t want to be seen on the same IP address as pr0n sites and poker sites, do you? Nor do you want to be seen hosted on the same server as spammers/phishers, do you?

Anything else? Otherwise for SEO purpose there’s no reason to “waste” IP addresses by having a dedicated one for your site. It’s always amazed me that a defunct company like DEC has its own class A network, where many Internet users in Asia are forced to sit behind NAT as their ISPs do not have enough IP addresses allocated to them.

Comments

Gravatar

Name based virtual hosting works well for http, but it is not possible for ftp. The actual ftp protocol is the limitation as everything gets converted to numeric IP addresses. If you run more than one site requiring an FTP presence on the same server, and those ftp sites can’t visibly comingle, you need additional IP addresses.

It is also impossible for https, due to some strange deficiency in the SSL protocol.

Gravatar

clm — yes it is impossible for FTP servers to determine which “virtual domain” you are connecting to, as unlike HTTP the hostname is never sent — unless it is part of the username.

For the FTP servers I manage, I just have policy of having “username@hostname” as the full username. With Pure-FTP it is easy to write an external authenticator that maps the user into the correct unix user + base directory.

And only one IP address used :)

Btw, I think FTP should die. It’s persistent and stateful (i.e. taking up server resources while idling), and the hard to configure the firewall.

anonymous — yes I have mentioned HTTPS. Maybe when HTTP implements TLS?

Gravatar

You might be right but I think we should better go with dedicated IP!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options