On Thursday 28 August 2003 04:24 pm, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 11:14 PM 28/08/2003 +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
Mike Tancsa wrote:
I dont think this would work too well. The users who are infected often think something is wrong because their connection and computer are not working quite right. So they disconnect / reconnect / reboot so they burn through quite a few dynamic IP addresses along the way.
This is an artifact of ISP´s wanting to have static IP´s as an add-on premium service so they provide short lease times and change IP as often as it´s feasible without interrupting service unneccessarily.
Huh ? This is an artifact of the way PM3s and MAX 6096s work with respect to how IP addresses are assigned out of pools.... i.e. this is the default behaviour. The same goes for our DSL pool.
---Mike
It isn't about wanting to charge more for a static ip per sea, it is more about efficient use of address space. If I have 10K dialup customers, if I go to arin and ask for a /18 so each one of my dialup customers can have a static ip, what do you think the response is going to be? -- Patrick Muldoon Network/Software Engineer INOC (http://www.inoc.net) PGPKEY (http://www.inoc.net/~doon) Key fingerprint = 8F70 6306 F0A7 B8DA BA95 76C4 606A 7DC1 370D 752C One picture is worth 128K words.