Hi, [stuff snipped]
And I have a whole lot of dialup users that would love to have a static IP so they can more easily run servers and such. Several years ago when our users were staticly addressed, ARIN requested that we move to dynamic addressing. Why do my users have to be dynamically addressed but @home's do not? [stuff snipped]
I don't think arin would object to you giving out static ip's to those of your users who specifically requst this service. ARIN will object if you want to assign a static ip every win95 Dialup person who justs uses the net to surf and check his mail. Greetings Christian -- TopLink Internet Services GmbH ck@171.2.195.in-addr.arpa Christian Kratzer http://noc.toplink.net/ Phone: +49 7032 2701-0 Fax: +49 7032 2701-19 FreeBSD spoken here!
On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Christian Kratzer wrote:
I don't think arin would object to you giving out static ip's to those of your users who specifically requst this service. ARIN will object if you want to assign a static ip every win95 Dialup person who justs uses the net to surf and check his mail.
Unless you are @home who they have permitted to assign all of their users static IPs. Brandon Ross Network Engineering 404-815-0770 800-719-4664 Director, Network Engineering, MindSpring Ent., Inc. info@mindspring.com ICQ: 2269442 Stop Smurf attacks! Configure your router interfaces to block directed broadcasts. See http://www.quadrunner.com/~chuegen/smurf.cgi for details.
Brandon Ross wrote:
I don't think arin would object to you giving out static ip's to those of your users who specifically requst this service. ARIN will object if you want to assign a static ip every win95 Dialup person who justs uses the net to surf and check his mail.
Unless you are @home who they have permitted to assign all of their users static IPs.
I wonder if @home has sufficiently proven that it is necessary to actually give out static IPs to cable modem subscribers. Considering that DHCP is there, I would have my doubts. Regardless of how the market gets sliced up to little providers or going all to a few big ones, issuing static IPs one to a household in North America alone is going to eat a huge chunk of address space by the time the world is all wired up. There better have been some kind of requirement that the space they got can be static for now, but has to become dynamic in the future as they expand, such as by getting no more space until they show that the peak number of addresses in concurrent use warrants the increase. Once concern I have with so many static IPs in use is how do they grow their network and keep the routes aggregated? If one area has a /24 and grows to need more, do you give it an arbitrary 2nd /24 or make it a /23? Are there going to be hundreds of small announcements from them or just a few or one? At least with dynamic (e.g. DHCP) you can renumber a whole area relatively easily and keep it aggregated. -- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* philh at intur.net * --
At 11:58 AM 11/7/98 -0600, Phil Howard wrote:
I don't think arin would object to you giving out static ip's to those of your users who specifically requst this service. ARIN will object if you want to assign a static ip every win95 Dialup person who justs uses the net to surf and check his mail.
Unless you are @home who they have permitted to assign all of their users static IPs.
I wonder if @home has sufficiently proven that it is necessary to actually give out static IPs to cable modem subscribers. Considering that DHCP is there, I would have my doubts.
The modem is connected 24x7. What is the purpose of Dynamic vs. Static *ASIDE FROM MAKING RENUMBERING EASIER*.
Regardless of how the market gets sliced up to little providers or going all to a few big ones, issuing static IPs one to a household in North America alone is going to eat a huge chunk of address space by the time the world is all wired up. There better have been some kind of requirement that the space they got can be static for now, but has to become dynamic in the future as they expand, such as by getting no more space until they show that the peak number of addresses in concurrent use warrants the increase.
That's the point - with @Home a static address IS concurrently in use. You get your cable modem and its up, period. Caveat - I'm discussing 2-way 24x7 @home customers. There are markets where the service is 1-way, I believe, and in THOSE markets, dynamic addressing makes more sense, because they're NOT all up 24x7 (if they are, the Cable-ISP's modem pool is going to get large)
Once concern I have with so many static IPs in use is how do they grow their network and keep the routes aggregated? If one area has a /24 and grows to need more, do you give it an arbitrary 2nd /24 or make it a /23? Are there going to be hundreds of small announcements from them or just a few or one? At least with dynamic (e.g. DHCP) you can renumber a whole area relatively easily and keep it aggregated.
That's one advantage of DHCP vs. static, BUT it isn't a technical issue that ARIN needs to concern itself with in regard to address space allocation, its simply an issue internally as how (not) to piss off your customers. D
The need for static IP comes from them wanting to run their own web-server. At 11:58 AM 11/7/98 -0600, Phil Howard wrote:
Brandon Ross wrote:
I don't think arin would object to you giving out static ip's to those of your users who specifically requst this service. ARIN will object if you want to assign a static ip every win95 Dialup person who justs uses the net to surf and check his mail.
Unless you are @home who they have permitted to assign all of their users static IPs.
I wonder if @home has sufficiently proven that it is necessary to actually give out static IPs to cable modem subscribers. Considering that DHCP is there, I would have my doubts.
Regardless of how the market gets sliced up to little providers or going all to a few big ones, issuing static IPs one to a household in North America alone is going to eat a huge chunk of address space by the time the world is all wired up. There better have been some kind of requirement that the space they got can be static for now, but has to become dynamic in the future as they expand, such as by getting no more space until they show that the peak number of addresses in concurrent use warrants the increase.
Once concern I have with so many static IPs in use is how do they grow their network and keep the routes aggregated? If one area has a /24 and grows to need more, do you give it an arbitrary 2nd /24 or make it a /23? Are there going to be hundreds of small announcements from them or just a few or one? At least with dynamic (e.g. DHCP) you can renumber a whole area relatively easily and keep it aggregated.
-- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* philh at intur.net * --
___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky
At 08:44 PM 11/7/98 -0500, TTSG wrote:
The need for static IP comes from them wanting to run their own web-server.
Not necessarily. I asked an ISP for a static IP for security reasons. ("Trusted hosts" and stuff like that there)
Notice, I never said otherwise. The web-server is a trivial and common example. Security issues are substantially less familiar to most folk. ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky
The need for static IP comes from them wanting to run their own web-server.
Not necessarily. I asked an ISP for a static IP for security reasons. ("Trusted hosts" and stuff like that there)
Yah, point well taken. Besides, AFAIK, @Home AUP expressly forbids users from offering web and ftp services of any sort off their boxen. Of course, that's not to say that there are not pseudo-31337 w4r3z-kiddi3z out there who do so anyways...8-)
At 12:35 AM 11/8/98 -0500, Adam Rothschild wrote:
The need for static IP comes from them wanting to run their own web-server.
Not necessarily. I asked an ISP for a static IP for security reasons. ("Trusted hosts" and stuff like that there)
Yah, point well taken.
Besides, AFAIK, @Home AUP expressly forbids users from offering web and ftp services of any sort off their boxen.
Unless they're doing contiuous port scans on all their IPs, they'll never know. Besides, there's always the IP equivalent of dial-back <grin>.
Of course, that's not to say that there are not pseudo-31337 w4r3z-kiddi3z out there who do so anyways...8-)
As I said <grin> @HOME's business/operations model is NOT one I particularly like. Folks should be free to run home servers. I'm thinking more along the lines of "smart house" which has to have a server. A "smart house" could never exist on the @home network. It's almost as bad as AOL. It stifles innovation. ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky
At 11:08 PM 11/7/98 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
@HOME's business/operations model is NOT one I particularly like.
then don't buy from them.
We decided not to. It was just a comment. ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky
On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Adam Rothschild wrote:
Besides, AFAIK, @Home AUP expressly forbids users from offering web and ftp services of any sort off their boxen.
That's a chuckle - all they have to do is get a local dialup-register a domain and ask their local provider to set up an A record for www.insert_gratuitous_sex_domain_here.com to point to their near-static ip. If their connection goes down and their lease expires they can call said ISP and ask it to be redirected to the new ip - usually at a minimal charge. -- I am nothing if not net-Q! - ras@poppa.clubrich.tiac.net
On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Brandon Ross wrote:
will object if you want to assign a static ip every win95 Dialup person who justs uses the net to surf and check his mail.
Unless you are @home who they have permitted to assign all of their users static IPs.
Doesn't Demon in UK do this too? Who's the IP overlord that decides which ISPs can give out static IP to all their customers, and which can't? Static IPs would make some of our customers happy, and would also solve the multiple login problem without any programming effort. ---dont't waste your cpu, crack rc5...www.distributed.net team enzo--- Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or Network Administrator | nestea'd...whatever it takes Florida Digital Turnpike | to get the job done. ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key________
participants (10)
-
Adam Rothschild -
Brandon Ross -
Christian Kratzer -
Derek Balling -
Jon Lewis -
Phil Howard -
Randy Bush -
Rich Sena -
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
TTSG