Onderwerp: Quote on dedicated server

I have received quite a few quotes now, so it will take a few days for me to go through them with thought, compare them, make some additional cost calculations and look up for some more details. Furthermore most of Scandinavia, including Finland, is celebrating Midsummer this weekend, so that will also keep me less occupied with this. I will however within a few days make my decision.

Thank you for all quotes and replies so far! Much appreciated!

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ensermo

As soon as I hear more I'll let you know.

Great! I'll be waiting for those details then. Oh, BTW, is IPv6 available at your datacenter?

Swiftway-UK,

One more extra question: Is IPv6 available or going to be available anytime soon (within 6-12 months)? I'm possibly planning to do some trials with it, for a possible small scale deployment of it, so just asking.

IPv6 is available within a few months from now, we just applied for our range with RIPE.

I'll add the IPv6 question and send it to the datacenter. Even though I believe it should be. (They tend to be up to date on technical stuff). Enjoy the midsummer days!

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Swiftway-UK

I
Leaseweb does not have a DC, we use Redbus Interhouse and Easynet as datacentres

So if I would order this server, in which DC would it be located? Redbus or Easynet? Furthermore, as I looked more in-depth at your network structure and names related to Swiftway, some questions came up. Could you please elaborate the following issues?

Is this "Neoworld Limited" you mention the same as Neoworld Nederland, which has colocation space at Redbus? If not, is this company somehow affiliated with Swiftway or the "Neoworld Limited" you talk about?

The IP subnet seems to be assigned to a Neoworld in the UK and with the domains swiftnoc.com and neonoc.com. Are these two assumed companies (NL and UK) related to each other or is this just one single company? In what jurisdiction is it incorporated? Asking so that I can check it with the company registry.

Is this the "Neoworld Limited" the Polish holding company Eureka owns? Is this NOC mentioned as abuse contact for both domains the same NOC with two different names?

Aside of this, are you a colocation client of Eweka or someone else at Redbus? Asking this because I digged up some threads about providers at Redbus, but none of the lists included Eureka, Neoworld, Neoworld Nederland or Swiftway. The information could be incomplete or outdated, but just checking.

Let's say I need assistance due to a network outage or something else. Would I be contacting neonoc.com/swiftnoc.com and whatever entity is behind them, or would I be contacting swiftway.pl/.co.uk and the entity apparently behind it, Eureka?

I hope you don't mind me trying break down the structure behind this abit, because I just want to have a better picture of how things work. Especially since there's very little details about you in English anywhere.

I am happy you ask, so that we can explain it.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Rasbelin

So if I would order this server, in which DC would it be located? Redbus or Easynet?

Probably in Easynet, since we recently got a high amount rack commitment there, while we already filled up our Redbus Commitment.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Rasbelin

Is this "Neoworld Limited" you mention the same as Neoworld Nederland, which has colocation space at Redbus? If not, is this company somehow affiliated with Swiftway or the "Neoworld Limited" you talk about?

It is not the same company, Neoworld Nederland is a reseller of our services in the Netherlands. We use a reseller structure and do not sell a lot directly to end users.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Rasbelin

The IP subnet seems to be assigned to a Neoworld in the UK and with the domains swiftnoc.com and neonoc.com. Are these two assumed companies (NL and UK) related to each other or is this just one single company? In what jurisdiction is it incorporated? Asking so that I can check it with the company registry.

It is incorporated in the UK, we only use swiftnoc.com and not neonoc.com.
Actually because of confusal all round we change our general name very soon to Swiftway.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Rasbelin

Is this the "Neoworld Limited" the Polish holding company Eureka owns? Is this NOC mentioned as abuse contact for both domains the same NOC with two different names?

I lost you there, we handle abuse messages for the Neoworld network AS35017 on the listed abuse@ email adres in RIPE.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Rasbelin

Aside of this, are you a colocation client of Eweka or someone else at Redbus? Asking this because I digged up some threads about providers at Redbus, but none of the lists included Eureka, Neoworld, Neoworld Nederland or Swiftway. The information could be incomplete or outdated, but just checking.

No, we are a direct customer of Redbus Interhouse, you can call them and mail them to verify this information, we are client as Neoworld Limited.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Rasbelin

Let's say I need assistance due to a network outage or something else. Would I be contacting neonoc.com/swiftnoc.com and whatever entity is behind them, or would I be contacting swiftway.pl/.co.uk and the entity apparently behind it, Eureka?

You will get all contact details as a client, phone number to call, 24/7 number to call, Email addresses to mail. You can consider Neoworld Limited as nothing more then a legal entity that holds and maintains the network, actually we are in progress of changing this all to Swiftway for benefit of clearance.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Rasbelin

I hope you don't mind me trying break down the structure behind this abit, because I just want to have a better picture of how things work. Especially since there's very little details about you in English anywhere.

I am happy to answer your questions like i did above.

Ensermo,

Any reply from the datacenter yet? I would need to know it soon, because I should be placing the order soon.

Dear Rasbelin,

Sorry for the delay. Had a long WC2006 weekend @ Germany .

I received some info from the datacenter.
IPv6 is possible but not standard. IP delegation for own rDNS can be arranged but they prefer not to do it for smaller ranges than /24 adresses. Also a small IP range (</25) on your own name is possible if you have a full/half rack but they do not do it for single servers as standard. We would have to put the IP's on name of our company. From the info I received I can conclude that your wishes are possible but not standaard. Also because it is only for one(1) server they are not keen on doing it right away. (I did receive the question why you needed so many and if you could answer for to RIPE.)

They do however offer room for expansion so it is not a static decision.

So if rDNS via us and 10 of our IP adresses are enough to start with it should be no problem. Expansion can be arranged with some paperwork but should be possible.

I will also speak to someone else tonight @ datacenter to find out more. Since we do not receive such a request frequently we do not have a standard answer.

Hopefully I have answered your questions. If you wish more information please don't hesitate in contacting us.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Ensermo
www.MKEweb.com

Thanks for the status update!

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ensermo

(I did receive the question why you needed so many and if you could answer for to RIPE.)

And like I said in my original post and in a reply, filling out the RIPE paperwork (the IP allocation justification form) is okay for me. I've previously had a quite large subnet with them, so I'm familiar with it. Providing the necessary justification for it won't be an issue. SEO isn't valid, but DNS, SSL and a few other reasons (not stating them here) should do it.

It's fine if it can't be arranged right away, but abit later. I just want to have a clear confirmation about it, so that I know it's okay and managable to arrange (if not now, then at least later). Wouldn't like to suddenly find out later on that it can't be done, which would mean I can't expand.

I will also speak to someone else tonight @ datacenter to find out more. Since we do not receive such a request frequently we do not have a standard answer.

Alright, I'll see what comes out of that then.

If there is no problem getting the paperwork for RIPE done, isn't the best solution to get one /24 registered on your name with RIPE through the colocater, and dual-home your server to the network of your provider (two uplinks to two different switches, a.k.a. teaming under Windows, etc.). ? You could even get RIPE PI space (expensive) that you can take with you when you change providers.

That way you bypass all the DNS subdelegation stuff that is hard for most colocaters and you have a more robust setup (dual homed instead of two single-homed small subnets). If you need the extra subnet for DNS or something most colocaters offer free secondary DNS...

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door mousehouse

If there is no problem getting the paperwork for RIPE done, isn't the best solution to get one /24 registered on your name with RIPE through the colocater, and dual-home your server to the network of your provider (two uplinks to two different switches, a.k.a. teaming under Windows, etc.). ?

First of all one single C class subnet would first of all be real waste of IP space, because my needs hardly exceed what I stated in the original message. Second of I'd then need two of them, because I would still need to span sites across two different C class subnets, which isn't possible with one single own C class subnet, unless I would have two of them. Now justifying two C class subnets to RIPE would be insane. It would require having some own racks and enough equipment/sites to demonstrate a need for it, which even doesn't exist, as less would be more than fine.

You could even get RIPE PI space (expensive) that you can take with you when you change providers.

That would be overkill for my needs. Not really something I'd consider before having a larger number of servers.

If you need the extra subnet for DNS or something most colocaters offer free secondary DNS...

I already have a network of offsite DNS servers, so not needing new ones. Actually I think I mentioned it already in some post.

However thanks for the suggestions. My original request however better matches what I'm looking for. Now if PTR re-delegation can't be arranged, I can probably skip it, as long as the requirement of two small subnets in two different C class subnets is met. This is a purely SEO related issue, but which is important for the success of my projects.

From an earlier post you made:

By allocating both subnets at once, I can better spread out my websites onto the two subnets, which is vital for good SEO. However if the DC has some strict policies about this, then of course will have to follow those.

I haven't made the calculation but I believe that you will have a solution with a higher availability (and will be easier to maintain) if you take two physical uplinks to the network in an Etherchannel (a.k.a. teaming, trunking, ...) and have one subnet.

As I understand now you have a requirement for two subnets to separate groups of sites, but there has been no discussion on how those subnets are connected to your server (single ethernet with two IP ranges, or dual ethernet). It will work, but somehow strikes me as a less elegant solution then I described above.

You've already stated that you are not considering our offer because of the hardware RAID. But I strongly urge you to have close look at your requirements, design and the following offers.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door mousehouse

As I understand now you have a requirement for two subnets to separate groups of sites, but there has been no discussion on how those subnets are connected to your server (single ethernet with two IP ranges, or dual ethernet).

I didn't specify it, because both solutions are fine by me.

It will work, but somehow strikes me as a less elegant solution then I described above.

The issue with your solution is that it means IPs in a single oversized IPv4 subnet, which means the whole SEO issue is omitted and justifying it to RIPE is a tad bit hard (well, they're less strict than ARIN, but still: no proven use for 80% of all the IPs = no justification). It doesn't matter how elegant is, if it doesn't do what is required from it.

You've already stated that you are not considering our offer because of the hardware RAID.

I'm actually still considering, like I previously said. It however is abit less attractive with no RAID. However if you can deliver the subnets like I said, either on one or two Ethernet interfaces, and possibly IPv6 now or later, as well as PTR re-delegation, then your offer is fine and matches quite well the other offers.

Short Update:

We got green light from our datacenter to ask for another /24 IP range. We have filled in the necessary papers under our company name. (otherwise they wouldn't do it easily.) Therefor withing a couple days we should be able to provide two different IP ranges each on it's own uplink for this server if you wish.

If you need any info please don't hesitate in contacting us.

Yours sincerly,
Michael Ensermo
www.MKEweb.com

Thank you very much to all the hosting providers that have approached me by various means! Much appreciated that you've taken the time to answer all my questions. I have now decided which host to deploy, so I have been in touch with the host in question for further discussions. I will not be disclosing here in public which host I have chosen and wish to have no discussion about it. The selected host will know if I chose them.

If for some reason this new hosting provider would fail to deliver my order, which would be the second host doing so in my hunt for a server, I will be reviewing the other remaining offers again. Or in case the new host turns out to be bad, I can get back to you. So your efforts haven't gone wasted. Will make a mental note about the other candidates too for future possible needs.