Internal license IP changes

[Richard G]

DirectAdmin license keys

So the license keys. Not the license itself. Some are still ip restricted. There are for example VPS lifetime licenses out there (I learned recently) which are very ip restricted.

In your case (and other datacenter ip's, so the normal internal licences) the restriction is the range you got the license for. You are referring to the wrong thread.
For datacenter's its this thread.

To prevent customer misuse, we have two IP-limiting mechanisms in place. The most important is Client IP Restrictions, an area of your account where you can register the IPv4/IPv6 ranges you operate under.

Which is why a change/switching an netblock most likely isn't a problem. But adding would mean adding ip's to your licenses without paying for the licencefee per ip.

He has to take it up with DA anyway.

 

[floyd]

In your case (and other datacenter ip's, so the normal internal licences) the restriction is the range you got the license for. You are referring to the wrong thread.
For datacenter's its this thread.

I have not had a problem using different ip blocks with my licenses. They don't seem to be tied to any particular block. I have never had to contact DA about changing blocks.

 

[Richard G]

They don't seem to be tied to any particular block.

Hmmz... well that's odd then. Maybe datacenter specific then. I don't know. Or you're just lucky.

 

[artakservers]

Lifetime licenses are not entitled to ticket support. Neither internal or external. Next to that, we're having Easter weekend. Most company's don't answer tickets within the Easter weekend.


So why would you need to add your netblock? Why can't you use the original netblock with them? That's why you get these licenses so cheap.
In case a server is decommissioned and a new one spuns up, give it the same ip as the decomissioned one. Shouldn't be an issue.
You didn't buy licenses for new ip's.
$89.00 / server (IP)
$49.00 / server (IP)
Some even got them for free if I'm not mistaken. So it's per ip. You're not entitled to adding netblocks.

Since we lost MariaDB 10.11 for lifetime licenses we are al having a problem and it can get even worse. Yes we paid for more, but due to lack of resources (mostly due to abuse) we're all paying the bill now.

Best is to contact DA via e-mail and get an answer that way or wait until after Easter to get a ticket reply.

Hi Richard,

Appreciate your take on this, but I believe there's been a misunderstanding. My concern isn't with the Easter weekend or support timings; it's with the fundamental change in how my lifetime license is being managed without my consent. This restriction on the IP address is a significant shift from the original terms, affecting how I can use the license.

Moreover, the problem with the tickets isn't just about slow responses; it's that they are being closed without any resolution or communication, indicative of an unwillingness to engage rather than a holiday delay. This pattern suggests a systematic issue beyond individual ticket handling.

Your insights would be appreciated, but I'm hoping for a more concrete resolution that acknowledges and addresses these concerns.

 

[Richard G]

This restriction on the IP address is a significant shift from the original terms, affecting how I can use the license.

Well in fact it's not. It's just that they haven't taken the time or bother to lock the licenses to netblocks. But if you read the agreement, the licenses are only to be used within a certain datacenter and netblock.
So they are entitled to lock the licenses to the netblock and it's up to them if they allow a netblock change later on. But I'm sure they won't do difficult about that if it's required and proove is provided.

You call it a significant shift, I just call it finally locking internal licenses to what they were entitled to. And with good reason.
And as mostly external lifetime license holder I do approve of this action. In the old days we external license holders even had to e-mail DA to please change the ip on a license id if we wanted to install a new server.
You might be aware of that since you also registered in the old days.

Ofcourse some won't like the more strict handling, but well... in those years for so little money, what's there to complaint? At least for the internal licenses, that they now are going to be limited what they are in fact entitled to in order to prevent the overload of abuse and illegal selling of those licenses?

DA isn't known to deny legitimate requests (even nicer as thought) and I'm already here for a very long time. As are others.
There are only a happy few which start complaining here and blaiming DA when they don't get what they want, so logically arise suspicion on my side. Otherwise we would have massive complaints here, which isn't the case.

Why should DA close tickets without answering? They aren't known to do that. So something else must be the reason. And as said, they are not obligated to answer tickets to lifetime licenses, not even ours. That's why you should send an e-mail.

Want to blaim DA in public? Then proof in public that you (generally speaking) are in your right, shouldn't be difficult.

That starts with:
1.) What url are you selling vps/servers from
2.) What's your netblock
3.) From who did you buy your license

These are just a few very valid questions which any other platforum would ask too.
But if I see that the few people complaint here, already never answer question 1, then do you wonder why we get even suspicious about the validity of the complaints?
But this is your answer to your question to address your concerns. So in general, for the few people encountering these issues.

Ofcourse nobody is obliged to provide that information to us, while it's public anyway.
But in that case, there is also no valid reason or argument for blaiming and accusing DA of things, without any proof. As we know for a fact they are not out to hurt legal customers.

And who said somebody didn't stop your or anybody else doesn't stop the business in between, sold licenses, bought them second hand or whatever?

P.s. I've said "you" in various parts here, but I mean this in general, so you and others blaiming DA for whatever. So generally speaking.

 

[DirectAdmin Sales]

(Thread moved & title edited for clarity, as this affects all internal products; not just lifetime.)

Although adjustments or limitations to our licensing have always been within our discretion, it would be fair to say that we have moved from blind trust to formal verification.

We understand concerns about fairness, but it's important to note that adhering to industry-standard practices ensures consistency and security for all users. By verifying IP addresses formally owned or leased by our customers, we maintain a level playing field and protect against unauthorized use.

Following industry-standard practices not only ensures fairness to our customers, but also protects them against monopolistic practices, as it facilitates a smoother transition should customers decide to explore alternative solutions in the future.

 

[artakservers]

Well in fact it's not. It's just that they haven't taken the time or bother to lock the licenses to netblocks. But if you read the agreement, the licenses are only to be used within a certain datacenter and netblock.
So they are entitled to lock the licenses to the netblock and it's up to them if they allow a netblock change later on. But I'm sure they won't do difficult about that if it's required and proove is provided.

You call it a significant shift, I just call it finally locking internal licenses to what they were entitled to. And with good reason.
And as mostly external lifetime license holder I do approve of this action. In the old days we external license holders even had to e-mail DA to please change the ip on a license id if we wanted to install a new server.
You might be aware of that since you also registered in the old days.

Ofcourse some won't like the more strict handling, but well... in those years for so little money, what's there to complaint? At least for the internal licenses, that they now are going to be limited what they are in fact entitled to in order to prevent the overload of abuse and illegal selling of those licenses?

DA isn't known to deny legitimate requests (even nicer as thought) and I'm already here for a very long time. As are others.
There are only a happy few which start complaining here and blaiming DA when they don't get what they want, so logically arise suspicion on my side. Otherwise we would have massive complaints here, which isn't the case.

Why should DA close tickets without answering? They aren't known to do that. So something else must be the reason. And as said, they are not obligated to answer tickets to lifetime licenses, not even ours. That's why you should send an e-mail.

Want to blaim DA in public? Then proof in public that you (generally speaking) are in your right, shouldn't be difficult.

That starts with:
1.) What url are you selling vps/servers from
2.) What's your netblock
3.) From who did you buy your license

These are just a few very valid questions which any other platforum would ask too.
But if I see that the few people complaint here, already never answer question 1, then do you wonder why we get even suspicious about the validity of the complaints?
But this is your answer to your question to address your concerns. So in general, for the few people encountering these issues.

Ofcourse nobody is obliged to provide that information to us, while it's public anyway.
But in that case, there is also no valid reason or argument for blaiming and accusing DA of things, without any proof. As we know for a fact they are not out to hurt legal customers.

And who said somebody didn't stop your or anybody else doesn't stop the business in between, sold licenses, bought them second hand or whatever?

P.s. I've said "you" in various parts here, but I mean this in general, so you and others blaiming DA for whatever. So generally speaking.

I'm not sure if you're defending them unknowingly, but my license is locked to a single /32 IP, which is frozen, and I only want to adjust it to the same netblock and range, which obviously belongs to me. The WHOIS information for the current IP and netblock is identical. My tickets are being closed without any response or reply. They offer no explanation and simply close them. Do you find this behavior defensible? If you are a member of the DirectAdmin company or one of its employees, please help me.

Moreover, this issue of restriction has left my server unable to use DirectAdmin for over 30 days now, rendering it inactive. If I truly don't receive a response soon, I'll be forced to migrate to a different control panel. It's clear that DirectAdmin has not honored the lifetime license agreement they provided to me.

 

[floyd]

(Thread moved & title edited for clarity, as this affects all internal products; not just lifetime.)

Although adjustments or limitations to our licensing have always been within our discretion, it would be fair to say that we have moved from blind trust to formal verification.

We understand concerns about fairness, but it's important to note that adhering to industry-standard practices ensures consistency and security for all users. By verifying IP addresses formally owned or leased by our customers, we maintain a level playing field and protect against unauthorized use.

Following industry-standard practices not only ensures fairness to our customers, but also protects them against monopolistic practices, as it facilitates a smoother transition should customers decide to explore alternative solutions in the future.

Perhaps you have not heard of Blackstone's ratio. You are hurting innocent people with this change in policy. Your dragnet approach is hurting some of your loyal customers who are getting caught in the same net as the abusers.

 

[Richard G]

My tickets are being closed without any response or reply. They offer no explanation and simply close them. Do you find this behavior defensible?

Yes I find this behaviour defendable. Why? It has good reason. And no I don't work for DA, sorry.
By accident I also had an open ticket and encountered the same issue and I have asked them why. The problem is (as to be expected around holiday times) that the ticket system is a bit too busy at the moment.
In that case, priority tickets get handeld first, and tickets which in fact have no support entitlement (like mine too as I have an external lifetime license) get down the queue. Unfortunately, when at a certain time a ticket is not answered to, it's closed automatically.
So that is the reason tickets can get closed automatically without any answer.
It's no problem to visit your ticket and reopen it again.

I'm not sure if you're defending them unknowingly,

I defend them knowlingly, because it's not fair to make them bad on the forum, without any proof that one is in it's right.
So I will nicely ask again which is the url you're selling your vps/servers from if you have an internal license. Or what kind of license do you have?
If you don't provide proof (which you are not obligated to do) then please also stop give DA a bad name without proof.

Because as you can see, there is a simple explanation and valid reason tickets get closed automatically. Which is why I always advise to handle these things via mail with Directadmin. Then you don't have a risk of tickets getting closed.

You are hurting innocent people with this change in policy.

That's only true for the removal of MariaDB. As for the internal license policy, it's not a change in policy, they just didn't handle it more strict now, but it was known from the beginning that it was only to be used within in a certain netblock/datacenter, that's also in the agreement.

 

[artakservers]

Yes I find this behaviour defendable. Why? It has good reason. And no I don't work for DA, sorry.
By accident I also had an open ticket and encountered the same issue and I have asked them why. The problem is (as to be expected around holiday times) that the ticket system is a bit too busy at the moment.
In that case, priority tickets get handeld first, and tickets which in fact have no support entitlement (like mine too as I have an external lifetime license) get down the queue. Unfortunately, when at a certain time a ticket is not answered to, it's closed automatically.
So that is the reason tickets can get closed automatically without any answer.
It's no problem to visit your ticket and reopen it again.

This sequence of closed tickets, as seen in the screenshot, clearly demonstrates a pattern that can't simply be dismissed as an automated process due to high volumes or holiday backlogs. Each time I reopen a ticket, it's closed again on the same day without any response. This isn't about a system automatically closing tickets; it's apparent that someone is actively closing them, and it's disheartening to see this happen repeatedly without any communication.

If the DirectAdmin team claims that this is not their usual practice, I would welcome their input here on the forum to clarify why these tickets are being closed without any replies. A public explanation would be beneficial not only for me but for all customers who might be experiencing similar issues. It's clear that this isn't an automated error but a deliberate choice not to engage with certain concerns.

The lack of response goes against the principles of good customer service and undermines the trust we place in a company when we invest in their products for the long term. I'm asking for a fair and transparent handling of this situation. It's time for a straightforward answer: Why are these tickets being closed without any attempt to resolve the underlying issue?

I hope this message prompts a constructive dialogue that leads to a resolution, restoring confidence in DirectAdmin's commitment to its customers.

 

[Richard G]

that can't simply be dismissed as an automated process due to high volumes or holiday backlogs. Each time I reopen a ticket, it's closed again on the same day without any response.

Your screenshot says totally nothing about reason of closing. It's just bashing at DA again without providing -any- proof of your worthyness.

If this ticket closing is happening soon after each other, then the reason is that there is nothing more to say, otherwise said, update the required information in your original ticket, it does not help to add more tickets because:
1.) You are already being helped in at least one of the tickets as you said yourself. They don't close tickets without reason so information must be missing. You can reopen your original ticket, no need to add more tickets.
2.) You are not entitled to ticket support, so it's no use to open more tickets, so closing is logically.
3.) It's repeatedly said if you don't like the ticket support, send them an e-mail as you in fact should have done.
4.) If DA was doing this, there would be massive complaints, which there aren't. It's only a few and only always the same arguments, without giving any proof.

Where is your url?
Provide that or stop bashing DA. Because then at least we forum users can have any clue if your protests might be valid in any way.

 

[floyd]

As for the internal license policy, it's not a change in policy, they just didn't handle it more strict now, but it was known from the beginning that it was only to be used within in a certain netblock/datacenter, that's also in the agreement.

I never saw anything about restricting to a netblock. That would have been a deal breaker for me since I had at the time I signed up several different non consecutive blocks of ip's. After asking DA to change ip's for some licenses a few times they gave me the ability to change my own ip's. I have changed them to different blocks multiple times and even changed a data center without issue. Now licenses are not even supposed to be tied to ip's so I don't know what the issue could be. Even now there is no mention of ip or netblock restrictions in the partner agreement.

There is no reason for a license to be tied to an ip now since a hash key is used and the license can only be used on one server at a time. So are the licenses tied to an ip or netblock block or not? Be truthful JBMC.

 

[Richard G]

I never saw anything about restricting to a netblock.

They have always been restricted to a datacenter to be used. Every datacenter uses a certain netblock.
However as far as I know, it's no problem changing a netblock within a datacenter or even maybe change datacenter.

As you can see, licences are bought per per ip address.

DirectAdmin Web Control Panel Pricing

$89.00 / server (IP)
So it says there clearly a price per server (ip).

It has however nothing to do with the complaints stated in this thread.

You as internal license holder never had issues and you don't have any issue providing an url either if you would be asked.
The fact that you never had issues also prooves that DA is not out to give problems to people trying to do things in a legal way.

There is no reason for a license to be tied to an ip now

Again, the hash is mostly for easy of installation so you don't have to change ip's anymore. But as said before, there are multiple internal licenses out there, not only the datacenter ones.
And amongst them there are also (as DA also already declared here) licenses which are in fact tied to an ip address. As are the VPS licenses, which are also tied to ip and also can make use of the hash.
The hash doesn't say anything, it just makes installations easier.

So licenses tied to an ip are either restricted licenses as they were before (like the VPS licenses), or licenses suspected of abuse imho.
In your case, there is nothing to worry about as far as I can see.

So are the licenses tied to an ip or netblock block or not? Be truthful JBMC.

Lets see if @DirectAdmin Sales is prepared to make another statement about this here to clear things up for you.

 

[floyd]

I am sorry if I am derailing this particular thread.

As you can see, licences are bought per per ip address.

DirectAdmin Web Control Panel Pricing

$89.00 / server (IP)
So it says there clearly a price per server (ip).

But it doesn't say anything about not being able to change it. Originally they told me to send them an email if I needed it changed. But soon after that they set up the client area where I could change my own ip addresses.

I guess its just hard for me to advise somebody if for some reason my account is special and I don't know it. I assumed artakservers' account was similar to mine since he said he had an internal lifetime license just like I do. I can't advise him in this case.

 

[Richard G]

But it doesn't say anything about not being able to change it.

Neither did I, and neither did Directadmin. But it's a different story if you want to add ip's. You are entitled to a certain amount of licenses, the licenses are valid for that many ip's you bought licenses for.

So if artakservers want to add ip's, that is not possible, because that would mean buying more licenses and they are not sold anymore.
Changing ip's is a different story. DA does not have an issue with that as far as I know.
But in some cases, when some flag is turned red for whatever reason (most likely happened with artakservers), then you have to provide some information. Which for most (like you) is no issue at all to give, if needed.

Check post #24 and #26 here. They are not asking unreasonable things.
Especially this one:

Some attempts to verify information turn into long & drawn-out (and typically unproductive) conversations, but that doesn't mean the solution is shift it to the forum.

Which imho is exactly what we see happening now. Only a few come over here and complaint, won't give answer to what is asked, only keep complaining. While in fact, it shouldn't be very hard to apply to the verification request.
Industry standard practices. If I read at cPanel partners what that is, then it's a website url, NOC and netblock in use. Can't be hard to provide, right?

 

[DirectAdmin Sales]

As mentioned above, adjustments or limitations to our licensing have always been within our discretion. Traditionally speaking, IP address in license has been a static field. In our early history, changes to license IP began through manual requests by e-mail at our sole discretion/approval, and then a semi-automated IP-change request system (that still involved a manual approval queue), then an arbitrary 5 IP change / year limit, then a key-based system, and perhaps more licensing evolution in the future. Therefore, there has always been some form of manual approval, limits, or restrictions.

Due to licensing completely being at our discretion, we are using it as a tool to help fight abuse of our internal products. It's important to clarify that while this may be a change, it is something we have the discretion to implement, and it aligns with industry standards and serves to enhance security and fairness for all users.

Certain measures, including IP address verification, are crucial for sustaining ongoing resources by preventing unauthorized usage and ensuring the integrity of our services.

 

[floyd]

But it's a different story if you want to add ip's.

@artakservers This is the problem with posting to old threads. The original post was about changing ip's. Really a new thread should have been started since it is NOT the same problem.

 

[Richard G]

Really a new thread should have been started since it is NOT the same problem.

In fact not a single thread should have been started, as this is to be solved either via e-mail or tickets. These are no forum issues.

 

[floyd]

In fact not a single thread should have been started, as this is to be solved either via e-mail or tickets. These are no forum issues.

Agreed.

 

[artakservers]

Your screenshot says totally nothing about reason of closing. It's just bashing at DA again without providing -any- proof of your worthyness.

If this ticket closing is happening soon after each other, then the reason is that there is nothing more to say, otherwise said, update the required information in your original ticket, it does not help to add more tickets because:
1.) You are already being helped in at least one of the tickets as you said yourself. They don't close tickets without reason so information must be missing. You can reopen your original ticket, no need to add more tickets.
2.) You are not entitled to ticket support, so it's no use to open more tickets, so closing is logically.
3.) It's repeatedly said if you don't like the ticket support, send them an e-mail as you in fact should have done.
4.) If DA was doing this, there would be massive complaints, which there aren't. It's only a few and only always the same arguments, without giving any proof.

Where is your url?
Provide that or stop bashing DA. Because then at least we forum users can have any clue if your protests might be valid in any way.

Richard,

I've attached screenshots of the ticket communication with DirectAdmin. As visible, my attempts to follow the advised protocol—updating the original ticket instead of creating new ones—have been met with the same outcome: closure without a resolution or explanation.

This isn't about creating multiple tickets or not understanding the support process. This is about a direct, unaddressed issue with the IP restriction on my license, which is well within my rights to inquire about, as it affects my business operations. Simply stating that tickets are closed due to lack of entitlement does not address the fundamental concern. It's a matter of professional courtesy to provide a clear response or directive, even if that response is a final and unfavorable decision.

The absence of communication and resolution does not equate to an absence of the issue. If there has been a change in policy regarding lifetime licenses, it should be communicated transparently. I ask for a straightforward statement from DirectAdmin: has there been a policy change, and where does that leave us, the lifetime license holders? A clear, official statement would suffice, even if it's to say that the terms have changed and there is no support available—this would at least provide closure on the matter.

The ongoing silence and ticket closures only serve to escalate the situation, and my hope is that this can be resolved with mutual respect and understanding. It’s in the interest of both parties to find a resolution and maintain a professional relationship.

Thank you for engaging in this dialogue and I look forward to a definitive response from DirectAdmin.