Scalable compute services.
Simple object storage.
Run managed Kubernetes clusters.
Tools & Integrations
Automate your infrastructure.
Deploy pre-built applications.
Connect, share and learn
DevOps and development guides
Questions & Answers
Development and systems Q&A
by Justin Ellingwood
More than one ip for a VM would be great. A small subnet maybe ..
Please provide us additional IP v4.
As for SSL/TLS (HTTPS): With TLSv1 support for server name indication (short: SNI) was introduced. With it the server name is exchanged prior to the actual tls handshake allowing to secure multiple websites using a single ip address. This happened several years ago and most web server including HTTPD and NGINX have seemless support for TLS (all ssl versions are now deprecated anyway). So HTTPS is no longer a reason to require multiple ip addresses.
That's needed so badly.
This is bad for good company..
I'd love to have this option too. Especially now when google needs all pages with personal info to be under ssl.
I really do like DigitalOcean, but I may have to move to another provider soon (AWS), as the absence of this feature is really affecting my ability to get things done.
This would be very valuable. As things stand I'll have to go to another provider for certain projects, and I dislike doing so.
If I can buy the least expensive droplet for $5 per month and it comes with an IP, why not allow me to buy the IP without the droplet for the same $5 per month? Sure, the cost is high but would be worth it for some projects.
Didn't realize this wasn't an option. I'm going to have to move my server to another host without this :(
All internet marketers, and SEO service need additional ip v4.
IPv6/64 is being considered by DO, so with that one would hope for more IPv4 addresses, but there are not enough IPv4 addresses to do this.
Unfortunately, it is as simple as that. DO could buy great big chunks of IPv4 addresses, at great cost, from Governments (such as the UK), who have vast ranges of the IPv4 spectrum sitting doing nothing. They have been selling off big ranges of them recently.
IPv6 cannot be mass adopted quick enough.
Support for a 2nd or 3rd (multiple) IP addresses IMPORTANT
Our droplet should be allowed more than 1 IP
Please provide us additional ips
Pls pls pls
Needed for SSL and hosting multiple sites without same IP on one droplet, please consider!
+1 for this. This is needed for SSL certs!
+1 Let's do it!
we need it for seo and it doesn't make sense to build a special server for each website
We need IPs,
This was suggested about 2 years ago, is anyone from DO paying attention to suggestions? They need to address this.
Yes would be a great idea
Would like a possiblity to add extra IPv4's to a droplet.
Most of the competitors to D.O. I have looked at have option to pay for additional IPs. For as little as a couple of dollars a month. It's essential for anyone using SSL, which is increasingly considered a must for numerous reasons. This is the one thing that is preventing me from using D.O. for my VPS hosting. I hardly want to have to buy an additional droplet for each web site on which I require SSL.
+1 This is the biggest hurdle for moving all my VPS's to DO
We desperately need more than 1 IP per droplet. Even if the IP costs $5/month, we understand the cost. We just need more.
all internet marketers, SEOs need this!
Google penalise websites for using shared IP addresses so when running a multisite apache setup being able to assign different IP addresses to each site would be beneficial.
Stop begging for free IPv4 addresses, they simply can't.
The IPv4 space is quite frankly already at its brink of complete exhaustion.
For DigitalOcean to reserve extra addresses just because you bunch of idiots want more IP's is dumb.
If you need more IP's go use IPv6, you get a fuck ton of them.
I could use IPv6 addresses for the individual droplets, so I'll trade you 2 IPv4 addresses for 2 IPv6 addresses and 1 IPv4 address that I can float between 2 droplets.
I would like the possbility to have more IP's for the same droplet. For instance in my case I want to install two SSL certificates on the same droplet.
why you are not giving additional ip for the droplet without it we can run our business.
This would be awesome for keepalived
+1 This is a MUST.
Without VRRP possibilities on Digitalocean, it won't be able to suffice for almost all production setups that require high availability. (which from my point is a must for every production setup)
Offering a second ip for free would make DigitalOcean the best VPS provider in the world.
A payed option for third, fourth and so on should also be provided for those customers that requires that (2$ / month seems like a fair price).
+1 Let's do it!
+1! Go more ip!
i need more ip too on droplet
In my case $5 for another IP per month is still fair price.
This is the only reason why I have not moved all in DigitalOcean
Really guys, see how many people request this.. what is the technological limitation here?
Agreed, I would love to have an additional IP for Keepalived to provide redundancy for a service that I run.
Thanks for Vultr, sorry Digital Ocean.
Not seeing the need for additional IPs to use with SSL certificates as there are other options, including SNI.
However, a virtual IP shared by two instances and managed via Keepalived would be invaluable.
(Excluding the SSL use-case could mean less actual IPs are needed to provide this option.)
i need to setup some ssl certificates....i will move to ovh
+1 for me
Revenue generating idea, this should be top priority digital ocean.
Crazy this is still not happening. Any word on if it's even being considered?
By the way "Gathering feedback" for 4 months, over 1,700 votes and over 130 comments. Isn't that enough for Any company to do something about it?
Such a turn off. There is no good reason for a prominent hosting not to give the option to lease additional IPs.
The only reason I can think of is that DO thinks that they will sell more droplets because of this.
As far as I am concerned, I'm going to go with Vultr just because of this...
I just assumed I could get an extra one after I signed up. Woops. I guess DO only has a limited block.
Totally agreed. This is actually the only reason why I am moving my business to Vultr.
I wanted Digital Ocean but no additional IPs is such a turn off.
All serious providers sell at least a couple of additional IPs. Sometimes they ask for proof that you actually need more IPs but at least they give us the option.
To be taken seriously as a legit VPS provider, additional IP's are a must. I love this service already. I would marry it if I could get additional IP's.
You should at least allow multiple IPv4 addresses for SSL certificates (everyone else does!). With large numbers of people still on XP we don't have a lot of choice. and this has prevented us from moving our instances to you
Please, move forward with this
I am willing to pay 1$ per month per IP. Need total of 4 IPv4 on single droplet for last project.
Yes. Definitely. Please.
Yes, It is necessary
Unable to switch over our main server without this feature as we use three IP's for the various services.
If I'd realised ealrier that this was missing I'd probably not have gone with digital ocean.
A must have!
Absolutely necessary for professionals.
Would be great..
Yea, must have. Multi domain + SSL is currently kind of impossible.
i need additional ips.
Would be great..
would be great!
darkcoin please as a payment option, I`d definitly use it.
please webRTC STUN server needs at least two public IPs
Should have been added a long time ago.
It is required please add option to add additional IP..
very critical and can't continue without additional ip addresses, wish i knew about this earlier
Please add this, Very important for webhosting..
this is the one thing stopping me moving my hosting here :( multiple ip4 much needed!
We need a additional ip, it'll be great if digitalocean do this :)
Same here. Only one IP per droplet is going to stop me moving most of my clients over here, more so since Google announced SSL will become a ranking factor.
This is a feature that is needed.
Deffo, DO should allow more IPs than one per droplet.
i also suggest that, DO must allow extra ips with droplet.
Sometimes we need more ips with droplet.
I didnt want to say this but ... SOLARPVPS.com has many IP per host ... :(
FWIW, we are all perfectly willing to pay for extra IPs, just as I'm sure we've all had to do for years, along with justifying them with either CSRs or some other proof of need versus want. I can't stress enough how limiting this one-IP-per-box limitation really is...
This is absolutely crucial, and a base feature at any other hosting facility.. I was SO disappointed to spend 6+ hours of configuration on a new server with you guys only to find out that something I've been able to do at a co-lo since 1997 wasn't available.
+3 This is really important to us..
DigitalOcean don't care about this LOL.
They just want you to build a new server....! Yeah right.
This is very important to us to!
I concur. We are currently running 5 droplets and we will be forced to move back to AWS or other solution. SNI does only works technically - our logs are showing we are loosing nearly 30% of our traffic to Windows XP users.
We are more than happy to pay for the extra IPs but we are not willing to administer a full Linux install simply to satisfy this need - too much maintenance overhead.
Moisey, Are there any updates since your meeting in August of last year?
This is a critical need for us related to SSL. We have migrated all but two servers from Rackspace. We would love to be "all in" when this issue/feature is addressed. We would gladly pay for extra IPs. Rackspace does offer this option per support requests.
I need this feature, too.
Yes, please add this feature.
I need this too. when will this be made available for both ipv6 and 4?
really need this feature
A routed subnet would be better when combined with the BSD suggestion. Easily set up a good firewall (pfSense for example), with a handful of droplets behind it...
Lack of IPs keeps me from coming here. :( Also, an IP shouldn't cost more than $2 a month if you do and thats what most providers seem to charge.
Just frustrate a project by the lack of additional ip.
Please add this feature, this is important for cPanel/WHM USERS.
I concur to what Dan Smith shares. I have serious stuff like cPanel with multiple websites etc that can easily run on a droplet but I dont have more IPv4.
One IPv4 per instance means that I cannot have more than one SSL-enabled website per droplet which makes the whole use of installing control panel such as cPanel dead. SNI is not a viable optional at this point and its like killing your traffic on older systems
Please add this feature
The likelihood of having this feature adopted will increase if folks consolidate their votes. To that end, vote for this suggestion (which essentially accomplishes the same objective), instead: http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital-ocean/suggestions/3224425-more-ips (and has accumulated a whopping 649 votes!).
This could become a more realistic possibility if DigitalOcean would implement this suggestion: http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital-ocean/suggestions/3783274-allow-launching-droplets-with-no-public-ipv4-ip-an (because it would have the effect of freeing up some of DO's current allotment of IPv4s).
Same issue here. There is a thought that sites of similar content topics that share the same IP, suffer SEO hits. We had to stop a large migration of sites to Digital Ocean because we cannot receive multiple IP's per droplet.
*bump* Any updates so far? The private networking already works like a charm, but additional IPs would be great.
Recognizing the bind that the IPv4 shortage creates, could a short-term solution be that DigitalOcean charges for the IP address and simply provides a free droplet for each IP, to go along w/it?
For example: At the $5 price tier, a customer could purchase two IP addresses for $10/mo. The customer would then be free to choose whether to assign the two IP address to 2 separate $5-droplets or assign both IP addresses to one 512MB droplet.
I'm well aware of the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the SNI option, but unfortunately a substantial proportion of my visitors (about 7%) are still on Windows XP so Server Name Identification is not really a practical solution yet (and neither is IPv6, obviously). Eventually it will be, but for now I would have to get a separate droplet for each eCommerce site, which blows my budget.
So for now not having the option of at least some additional IP addresses is a showstopper for people in a similar situation.
The lacking of the ability to add additional IP's to Droplets is the last thing really preventing me from moving some production systems over to Digital Ocean.
We are in the process of rolling out private networking in our new NY2 facility which is a chance for us to review this request and see if we can make headway on it.
can we get an update?
SSL for multiple sites on XP IE requires this. Shame you don't have it.
i havent moved to DO cause of this, i mean for example i need a droplet with a streaming server (icecast) streaming on 80 port for avoid firewall blocking on offices, etc and a web server also on 80 port for control panel & statistics (centova). i think i cant achive this without 2 ips.
This is a serious block. Linode is a $20/mo min but only $1/mo per extra IPv4 address. I'm having to direct customers to other providers simply because additional IPs per VPS are not available. This is a serious shame.
Help me direct more customers to you by adding this feature as quickly as possible.
Looking forward to this feature. I'd hate to have some clients on AWS and some here... rather have everything in one place.
This is a necessity for anyone offering web hosting (e.g., cPanel). SSLs need dedicated IPs. I am surprised that such a large (fast-growing) provider can't provide this. I know there is a shortage, but if other VPS companies can get them, I'm not sure why DO can't.
Bump, bump. Any update?
Don't have any information update on this yet, we still have one more large project that we are in the process of completing which is the new CP which has a lot of refinements that people have asked for and hopefully will provide more clarification for new customers.
We have a few more items outstanding but as soon as we have more information we will provide it.
I did go through a large portion of the UserVoice comments to clean them up, but no update on this for now.
Any word on this Moisey? I know there were a few issues with Amsterdam and RIPE from a previous suggestion, which will most likely impact IPv4 assignment in that region, though any update is better than nothing :-). I know you guys are working hard and I definitely commend that - it's great to see the launch of another DC!
Keep us updated - I'm still splitting hairs with cPanel in hopes that IPv6 and SNI will soon be supported, though projections are still near the end of the year for either to fully make their way into the software. I'm all for NGINX, though my clients aren't as there's not a control panel available on the market today that will actively support and allow easy security and configuration (I'm *still* waiting, after 4 years, for someone to step up - if I had $25k to invest, I'd be hiring people *now*).
Another vote for this. If you use a control panel, SNI isn't supported well. No reason why we shouldn't be able to pay $5 for an IP, when we can get a droplet that has one assigned to it as well.
I like this idea. I am not expert enough with linux to fully make use of more IP's I bet, but one cheapo provider I have been testing in case people want me to set them up an ultra low cost linux based teamspeak server is selling additional IP's for $2 per.
I think it would be a good idea to have bonus packages for this and other things such as disk space etc.
@Alexander - SNI is great, unless you use a control panel, and then it becomes a royal pain as many control panels, specifically the more popular and frequently updated, don't support it just yet. NGINX also isn't 100% supported by any single control panel on the market so dropping Apache/Litespeed in favor of NGINX isn't a viable solution. For those that specifically use barebones VPS's and/or Dedicated Servers and can do the configuration manually, it's a perfect solution, but for those in the shared, reseller, [other] industries, it's just not a viable solution.
Chris have you looked in Server Name Indication? It's not the perfect solution but it's the future :P.
That would be nice. If it is possible soon to have more as 1 IP address per VM, then i will move all my projects to here. I need the IPs to handle my SSL-Certs. 1$/mo or 15$ one time for a additional IP would be nice :)
The pricing would most likely be $5/mo per IP.
I agree, and frankly I won't be able to use Digital Ocean for any real clients until this very simple feature is implemented. There are MANY applications that require more than a single IP address.
I was excited to get going with Digital Ocean, but it looks like for reasonable features and support it's still Linode.
Hey Moisey - Kernel Management sounds great too! Will this allow us to completely replace the kernel with our own, or will the options be limited?
In regards to IP's, do you have a rough estimate on availability and pricing? Will it still be $5 or are you all toying with higher / lower?
Implementing Kernel management first and then most likely moving on to this.
Hey Moisey - Hope the meeting went well. Any status updates?
Sounds good Moisey, please do keep us updated! Definitely hope this is an option after the discussion takes place as we have quite a few clients that'll be extremely happy to hear some good news :-). The lack of this specific option is the only thing preventing us from moving them over at this point.
Going to review this item in our meeting on Thursday and see what the general consensus is =]
I am curious if there's an update on this one :-). Even if it meant making a request and having the IP's manually assigned by support until the system is in place to allow us to do it, that'd be fine.
Paying $5 per IP isn't an issue.
This suggestion is the second most-voted as of posting time but seems to be still unplanned despite the many valid reasons given by well-experienced and well-meaning folks. Some are even willing to shell out $5 a month just for each IP.
I can't help thinking why would DO reserve IPs for trial accounts when some of us here even kinda promise moving more accounts to DO from other providers if only there could be extra IP for each droplet (for valid reasons of course).
@Eric - For those that use CP's, SNI is often not an option and the average home user doesn't care what SNI is, or how it works. They just want to know their data is being passed securely and when SNI fails for them, they'll most likely move along instead of contact the company and ask what's wrong. The result is lost sales.
Some clients want barebones systems, so we can use NGINX. Personally I love it, but for those can't configure their own virtual hosts, a control panel is a better environment, otherwise we'd be spending most of our time telling clients how to use NGINX and diagnosing what they did to break their configuration.
Going to look into this and see what we can do :)
I would think most people would be just fine with SNI and really don't need a second IP. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
IE on Windows XP is still, and never will be , compatible.
With that said, offering additional IPs at $5 each is very reasonable.
As a follow-up, I would set the bar a little higher than 2 IP's. We could easily justify 10-20 per VPS (all valid SSL's with GeoTrust, Thawte, etc - no self-signed), if not more. All of the SSL's are being used to secure client areas with sensitive information, secure e-commerce sites, etc.
@Moisey - I'd pay $5 / IP, no problem and I'll guarantee 100% justification, I just need the IP's :-). We have clients we'd love to move today, though cPanel + 1 IP prevents this from happening. Once we install our SSL for the server, the single IP can only be used to provide Shared SSL, which won't work for 99% of the clients we're hosting as they need their domain front-line and center.
If this is possible, at least for SSL, I'd love to jump on-board. You've got my e-mail address, so feel free to get in touch!
me, i just need one more IP. please be good to us DO. ;-)
We can look into providing additional IPs however if offered the fee would be $5/mo per IP, and it would still have some limits based on around justification.
I strongly urge you to reconsider this position. We are all aware that the pool of IPv4 addresses are running low but other providers (including your top competitors) still manage to provide IPv4 addresses on an as-needed basis with adequate justification for a fee. The idea that I need to host domains on their own VM's solely because they require an SSL certificate, for example, makes management of my sites under your network complicated when compared to your competitors. I would imagine that there is a sizeable chunk of users who would be in the same boat as I am.
Kenn, you are right and we may head down the right of providing an additional IP at $5/mo however it would only be limited to a small number like an additional 1 or 2 and require justification.
We want to avoid a customer that gets 256 IPs on a single server because they just want to have 256 domains each with a unique IP address, the days when this improved SEO are long since gone and instead relevant content and duplicate content have a much higher significance to SEO.
So we may add in support for a second IP.
Moisey, I totally understand that "it is the limitation of IPv4 and running out of global IP space" but your argument against this feature is a little weak.
A new droplet has its own IP, thus the minimum cost of getting another IPv4 on DO is $5/mo. In some kind of apps, it's easier to bind multiple IPs on a single droplet than to architect an entire distributed system for availability (more droplets involved = worse MTBF) and wasted computing resources. Why don't you just offer additional IP for $5/mo or more, for instance?
It's not black or white - things can be economically justified by supply and demand, based on the pricing. For our use case, we would pay more than $5/mo for that.
We need 2 IPs assigned to the same server when we build STUN server: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN for our game server's matchmaking features, but I understand that this kind of requirement is pretty rare, so I'm fine that it's not a generally-accessible feature. But, I'd like to ask if managing multiple IPs assigned to a single droplet is technically possible in your infrastructure.
In the case of Linode, when we need additional IPv4, they make us tell them the reason why we need it, and I think it's a sensible way of doing it. Considering how scarce IPv4 has become.
You mean aside from Facebook, and Tumblr, and just about every other gigantic website on the net? =]
great idea... too bad it'll never happen apparently..
also i'd like to add: nobody who is anybody uses nginx... Moisey sounds like an nginx advertisement...
darn it :/
linode.com (more expensive) allow multiple v4 IPs per one VPS instance for extra $s. it's a shame you can't but at least you tell us how things are.
I'd like to expand this to more advanced networking.
The roadmap is comprised of internal things that we need to get accomplished and mixing those priorities with exactly what's up voted here on UserVoice.
As for the multiple IP situation there is no chance in the future that we will ever be providing multiple IPv4 on the same virtual server, there's just no way around that.
It is the limitation of IPv4 and running out of global IP space and I'm sure that cPanel and other panels will eventually upgrade to using IPv6 on the backend and serving everything through a single IPv4.
Sounds good - is there a definite road map that can be viewed, or perhaps shoot me a quick e-mail. We've love to be able to move a few clients over sooner than later, though the IP drought is the biggest deterrent. They use CPanel, CPanel doesn't support SNI, and DO doesn't provide multiple IP's, so they're stuck :-).
InterWorx supports SNI, with a little configuration last I recall, though clustering doesn't work without at least 2 IP's on the cluster management node (which can be a VPS - and it's even suggested due to cloud providers).
With that said, IPv4 is the only way to go if the above are used (we can even toss Plesk and DirectAdmin into the mix so include the better part of the market share across the board :-) ).
Working on everything as fast as we can =]
We spent the last two months prepping for our double RAM / SSD announcement and we're going to be making progress on the rest of the roadmap / uservoice list as quickly as we can through the year.
Only time will tell how it goes but we're hopeful that this year we will make a sizable dent in the feature requests from users.
How far from IPv6 is DigitalOcean? Given that CPanel is a ways away from full SNI support and most CP's that offer clustering (i.e. InterWorx) require at least 2 IP's on the primary node (VPS), multiple IP's, even if only 2 per VPS, are almost a requirement unless you run nothing more than a LAMP stack (or similar).
I can completely understand the issue with IP deployment given the limitations and restrictions, though given that DO is a larger provider, it seems there'd be a little more pull to make this happen, even if only for the short-term until IPv6 is standard. I oversee an administer quite a few servers, so I know there's pressure from above to ensure IP's are allocated and their usage is properly justified, though at the same time, given the fact that the IP's would simply return to the pool if a VPS is destroyed, it seems allowing an extra IP per VPS wouldn't be an issue.
While I know that not everyone would, I could sit here and easily verify each IP requested and it'd fall well within guidelines for usage. Once IPv6 is widely adopted and a standard, of course, this won't be an issue, though in the mean time, IPv4 is the standard and is what is used by default. Most ISP's don't even fully support IPv6 yet (i.e. they support a mix, but not IPv6 only) - Charter Communications and Comcast, rather large and well-known providers, fall into this category, so while a mixed ratio works, full IPv6 support hasn't even made it's way to them yet and they're a major provider on the East Coast.
This isn't meant to be argumentative - DO's stance is what it is, I'm simply trying to make a point from a developer & server admin's point of view. If clients can't justify IP's, pull them, we do it and so do many providers that are larger than us. From just working with the front-end of your system, it seems you all definitely have the capabilities to manage such as you continue to grow :-).
Unfortunately the reality is that there is very limited IPv4 space available - about 45-60 million IPv4 addresses are left and based on the assignments this year this space will be entirely used up within the next 18-24 months.
So this is a limitation that is placed on us through ARIN and the realities of how much IP space is available. We would love to give everyone as many IPv4 addresses as they would like but unfortunately that's not possible.
Nginx and all modern browsers now fully support being able to use multiple SSL certificates on a single IP, so this is something that needs to be kicked up to their developers so that they begin to support it.
Part of the reason we have so little IP space now is because of all of the ways that it was wasted initially, from large assignments to institutions that would never make use of it, to all of the inefficient ways that the internet was officially setup at first mapping a domain to a single IP until HTTP was able to also process a domain in the request to map multiple domains to the same IP.
In our case we can't launch a virtual server without a public IP address so it literally correlates to allowing customers to spin up new servers, so this is a limitation that unfortunately is going to remain.
We will be adding IPv6 IPs in the future and there, there will of course be no restrictions given the size of the pool available.
The only issue with not allowing more than 1 IP per VPS is that control panels, such as CPanel, require each domain to have a dedicated IP if you wish to install and use an SSL certificate.
You can, of course, use a Shared SSL, though it's hardly the same and for businesses that require their own (i.e. Extended Validation - one which verifies the business, not just the domain), that's a huge deal-breaker and would turn a business elsewhere.
It is possible with NGINX, though CPanel (or DirectAdmin, Plesk, Interworx - all very popular control panels, although CPanel corners the market) doesn't use NGINX, nor do they support it.
There would be other changes that we would need to make on the network and routing side to allow for HA which is why we are looking into ways to provide a simpler load balancing service that does the heavy lifting for customers and is more plug and play.
Is someone have suggests on how to do HA without a floating IP?
We will be adding IPv6 support in 2013 =]
more Ip-v6 free, is an alternative for who need more ips
Maybe the possibility to purchase more IP addresses at a reasonable price per month.
I'll add that I've done this successfully with Lighttpd. Somewhere in the 1.4 branch they supported SNI as well. Just enable it primarily then set a certificate per vhost. I did test and it works.
If you want to resell through us you can also follow our article on Nginx on how to setup multiple SSLs on a single IP using Nginx:
some of your customer may want to setup their own shared hosting on your virtual machines for their many small website customers. Many of these may need SSL if they are eshops. Forcing to buy a differen VPS per ip, makes your service more expensive and more inefficient. Can you image that I should buy and setup a new VPS, instead of setting up just another apache virtual host?
That's true but it is a decreasing market share and for some specific companies that share is much lower. Last time we checked we had only 10% internet explorer traffic if that.
Unfortunately we aren't supporting multiple IPs for a virtual server, and if we did the cost would probably be close to getting a second virtual server anyway so it's almost easier and cheaper overall to get another virtual machine.
SNI is not supported using Internet Explorer on Windows XP. Considering Windows XP still has more than 20% of the operating system market share, that leaves out an awfully large number of users. Again, deal breaker.
Multiple SSL certs on a single IP can be configured with Nginx and is supported by the majority of modern browsers.
Are there any other use cases for multiple IPs that you are interested in?
Um, clearly needed more than one site with a SSL Certificate requires more than one IP address. Not allowing this at all, kind of a deal breaker.
We don't have any plans yet to add more IP space to current virtual servers but if you let us know what your intended use is we could probably help you with a work around.
Maybe you can think of standard additions for a vitual server, such as paid additional ips or subnets?
Unfortunately we do not provide more than 1 IP per virtual server, if there are particular needs that require more than one IP let us know and we'll help you create a work around.
Hopefully they might allow / provide in the future
well that will be so cool , but DO's did not allow more than one ip
a small subnet would be nice.
Definitely need the ability to request a small subnet.
You won't be notified about changes to this idea.