Re: Limiting Simultaneous connections (fwd)

charley@esslink.com
Thu, 27 Jun 96 22:40:30 -0500

That does make sense, however what about the software companies out there making
software that HAS to have a static IP address in order to work properly, we have
seen at least 10 different software packages like this, and some of that
software alot of customers prefer to use..........

On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Derek Elder <djelder@mtvernon1.accessus.net> wrote:
>And the one big reason that no one has mentioned (that I have seen) is
>that the IETF just recently released a BCP (best current practice) that
>states that ISP's should not use static IP addresses for dialup users
>because all this does is contributes to backbone router collapse (do to
>ridiculous sized routing tables) and makes it next to impossible for an
>ISP to make simple network changes.
>
>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
>>
>
>
>
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
| ESSLink - Connecticut's Internet Access Providers |
| URL: http://www.esslink.com/ E-MAIL: info@esslink.com |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+