I will refer anyone who takes an interest in how the Internet really
works and how changes will affect you in the future to puruse the USENET
newsgroup info.ietf.
===============================================================
Derek Elder djelder@accessus.net
===============================================================
On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, MegaZone wrote:
> Once upon a time Kevin Kadow shaped the electrons to say...
> >Unless the ISP is _really_ cheap or _really_ low on IP space, static is
> >they way to go for many reasons, of which simultaneous logins is the least.
>
> Reasons NOT to go static:
> Doesn't scale well at all - quickly becomes routing nightmare. Much higher
> chance of a routing loop, or dead end.
>
> Is a senseless waste of IP space. With ISP port to user ratios of 10:1 you
> are talking a 10 fold increase in required IPs. This is more expensive and
> involves a lot more overhead in maintaing DNS, routing, etc, etc. IMHO it
> is irresponsible to burn IPs so fast when there is no real need.
>
> Can't use DEFAULT entry in RADIUS, need entry for each individual. Which
> mean a much larger file - and trhe performace and maintanence hits that
> involves.
>
> It makes filters longer and more complex as there are more networks to
> consider.
>
> I strongly discourage the use of static IPs on dialins. Static IPs are a
> senseless waste of addressing - and some of the upstream providers won't
> give you more IPs if they find you are doing static addressing. Space
> is getting tight.
>
> -MZ
> --
> Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs
> Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com
> For support requests: support@livingston.com <http://www.livingston.com/>
> Snail mail: 6920 Koll Center Parkway #220, Pleasanton, CA 94566
>