Are there any true dynamic DSL providers?

Hi, I was wondering if there any ISP's where IP changes each time you connect. It seems mosts so-called dynamic IP services are actually 'sticky', ie they may not change at all.

BT - I cannot remember ever having the same IP after a reconnection and even after a manual resync it would change.

I believe Plusnet may do on the Value service which does not have a static IP.

When I worked there, many years ago, dynamic IPs were really dynamic and changed each connection.

Matt

Edited by uno (Tue 16-Aug-11 17:54:30)

Still the same, every disconnection on Plusnet Value results in a new IP.

My IP changes (within a range) every day when I switch my router on. ISP is Eclipse.

Orange IPs are not sticky. Probably follows from being BT WBC.

I've often wondered why ISPs bother with dynamic IP addresses these days. I'm assume that back in the mists of time there were enough people with USB modems to provide a churn and allow ISPs to have contended addresses thereby saving money. But today I'd have thought most people remain connected all the time or at least all the time during peak hours. So what's in it for the ISP? I wouldn't have thought enough people wanted a static IP address to make it a significant added value whilst at the same time most people have no need to change their IP address all the time.

My IP on BT changed every time I restarted the router

Dynamic addressing will disappear, I would imagine, with IPv6, and a good thing too. It's difficult to think of valid reasons for dynamic addressing.

In reply to a post by AEP:

Dynamic addressing will disappear, I would imagine, with IPv6, and a good thing too. It's difficult to think of valid reasons for dynamic addressing.

Money-saving by the ISP I imagine - fewer need to be allocated to them, and I assume they are not free.

I don't see why that should change with IPv6. Maybe it will. Or at least the price (to the ISP) be lower.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by AEP:

Dynamic addressing will disappear, I would imagine, with IPv6, and a good thing too. It's difficult to think of valid reasons for dynamic addressing.

Money-saving by the ISP I imagine - fewer need to be allocated to them, and I assume they are not free.

But I'm still doubtful if an ISP could do much to 'share' addresses amongst its users these days. If most people have standalone modem/routers then presumably most people are connected and using an IP address all the time.

I think the vast majority still switch off at night, if not whenever not using the computer. Particularly in term-time. I've no evidence though.

I suspect the opposite is true, they leave the modem/router on overnight. The course of action requiring the least effort is often the most pursued.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I think the vast majority still switch off at night, if not whenever not using the computer. Particularly in term-time. I've no evidence though.

I have to disagree, I can see 6 wireless connections from my house and none of these are ever turned off during late night eg 3am.

Often people's cordless phone and router connect in the same place (often into the same extension socket plug).

How many people actually think of turning these things off standby.

The same applies to sky boxes tvs microwaves etc

Edit: I've often had over 2000hours uptime without even thinking about it

Edited by ukhardy07 (Wed 17-Aug-11 15:30:57)

Our TVs are switched off overnight, the PVR is left one (we don't have Sky or cable). All the PC kit, including router, is switched off overnight (and when we're out for a while). The microwave and oven are left on, if only to avoid having to reset the blinking clocks every time. Most people I know who I help with their computer problems switch off their PC kit when they've finished with it. Many of them using a BT line for broadband have USB modems. I know of only one person who leaves their router on all the time, but that's for his internet radio.

I don't believe it's possible to say that 'most' people do this or 'most' people do that. In general we can only go by those we know or have dealings with and, in many cases, they may well have similar habits and views to ourselves.

In reply to a post by cheshire_man:

Our TVs are switched off overnight, the PVR is left one (we don't have Sky or cable). All the PC kit, including router, is switched off overnight (and when we're out for a while). The microwave and oven are left on, if only to avoid having to reset the blinking clocks every time. Most people I know who I help with their computer problems switch off their PC kit when they've finished with it. Many of them using a BT line for broadband have USB modems. I know of only one person who leaves their router on all the time, but that's for his internet radio.

I don't believe it's possible to say that 'most' people do this or 'most' people do that. In general we can only go by those we know or have dealings with and, in many cases, they may well have similar habits and views to ourselves.

This is true

The majority of my friends and neighbors have their routers either on the tv stand in the living room or in the hallway.

They also have families with often 2 or more children who use the Internet at strange hours should we say

Their computers and laptops are then wireless

The desktop is turned off but the routers left ticking by

the more techy friends of mine prefer having a wired connection as its usually faster. So their routers are on their desktop desk & I assume are turned off with the pc

I do not know anybody with a modem personally.

It's like in my household if I turned the router off somebody would turn it back on within 30 minutes.

& nobody in my house turns anything off so I've given up trying

So yes every situation is different

If I lived alone I might be able to save a little on that electric bill!

In reply to a post by ukhardy07:

If I lived alone I might be able to save a little on that electric bill!

I certainly don't live alone but my wife has absolutely no interest in using the computer so I'm the only user - except when our sons come up from London and Kent, maybe 3 or 4 times a year.

And I pay the electricity bill

There are so many available addresses with IPv6 that there is no need to ration them; the cost is nothing. Just allocating a static address will be much cheaper than messing about with DHCP servers.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I think the vast majority still switch off at night, if not whenever not using the computer. Particularly in term-time. I've no evidence though.

I'm not sure about that but even so does that help the ISPs? It's basically the same problem as for bandwidth I think. It's not what people do off-peak that matters. Given that one of the big advantages of ADSL is that it's an always on connection with no per-second billing I'd assume that during the day almost everyone's router is left on. Surely there can't be many people that only power the router on when they actually want to use the net?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

I suspect the opposite is true, they leave the modem/router on overnight. The course of action requiring the least effort is often the most pursued.

True although I used to have a timer on mine back when I wasn't running my own mail server. I still do on my A/V equipment down stairs. The only box that isn't powered off is my Humax Freesat box but that's a happy coincidence. It used to have a bug that meant it wouldn't obey timers after a power cut. They've fixed it now but as it happens it uses less than a watt in standby anyway so I could live with leaving it

The Sky box now is another matter. That thing consumes 14w in standby (as witness the fact it often has to spin its fan when idle to cool down). That most definitely is on a timer and during the week is off from 3am to 3pm.

But returning to my original comment:Given the nature of the OP's enquiry doesn't that imply that 'address sharing' is not common? The fact someone has to actually ask if anyone knows of an ISP where the address changes suggests to me that most ISPs are running a pseudo static addressing. My own ISP - BeThere - definitely seems to. Back when I had a dynamic IP address I'd switch my router off before going on holiday. I'd come back over a week later and get exactly the same IP address.

The O2/Be system is weird.

It seems to tie the IP address to the router. Changing router will change the IP address, and reverting to the first router normally reverts to the original address.

Edited by RobertoS (Thu 18-Aug-11 11:49:10)

If you cloned the MAC for the WAN interface it would probably be the same on the different router

NOTE:

Providers who do use dynamic IP's do keep records of who has which IP at what time.

Also dynamic's are why whole blocks of IP's are sometimes black holed by mail servers, i.e. avoids bots being blocked on IP and surfacing on a different IP in the same block.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

The fact someone has to actually ask if anyone knows of an ISP where the address changes suggests to me that most ISPs are running a pseudo static addressing. My own ISP - BeThere - definitely seems to. Back when I had a dynamic IP address I'd switch my router off before going on holiday. I'd come back over a week later and get exactly the same IP address.

BE, until recently, were unique in their use of IPoA, which more often than not seems to tie the customers IP address to the MAC address for long periods of time. Every other ISP (apart from more recently Sky) use PPPoA which in most cases is set up to offer "proper" dynamic IP addresses.

Edit: I was slow to click submit so RobertoS has already said it

Edited by Oliver341 (Thu 18-Aug-11 10:21:43)

In reply to a post by AEP:

It's difficult to think of valid reasons for dynamic addressing.

I assume in the dial-up days the IP would get re-allocated when the user shut down their PC. In those days less IPs could go round more users. Nowadays it's one IP (or more) per user.

It does provide a modicum of IP privacy from spammers for the user, but one would question why the user is attracting spammers.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If you cloned the MAC for the WAN interface it would probably be the same on the different router

Correct! That has been demonstrated. That doesn't alter the fact it's a weird sort of dynamic address.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Edit: I was slow to click submit so RobertoS has already said it

But you explained it. I had no idea why it is like that.

As I've mentioned before, I think it's a shame that BT Infinity (consumer) has no static IP addressing option, when the increased upload capacity provides more opportunity for running servers. I don't think running servers is the preserve of "business usage" these days. I hope IPv6 means a shift to static addressing, but that's not necessarily a given.

LIkely to be only an option on the business products which is what BT Total does now for its ADSL/ADSL2+ range

Servers like slingbox usually have their own system for tracking access do dynamic is not an issue

But there are applications where static IP addresses are much more preferable, such as running a mail server. I don't think running a mail server is the sole preserve of businesses anymore, for privacy reasons an "in-home" mail server makes quite a lot of sense.

Out of 19 million broadband users in the UK - how many know how to setup a mail server, let alone have the desire to run one.

presumably most people are connected and using an IP address all the time

didn't Talk Talk just publish stats ..............

"The largest amount of customers TalkTalk saw online in June was 2.75 million people (around 65%),"

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Out of 19 million broadband users in the UK - how many know how to setup a mail server, let alone have the desire to run one.

It might be more than you think. In any case, why not offer the option? Could even be a revenue stream (like it is for O2).

If you're running a mail server, you really need to have your router on all the time. So it doesn't really matter whether your address is static or dynamic.

In reply to a post by AEP:

If you're running a mail server, you really need to have your router on all the time. So it doesn't really matter whether your address is static or dynamic.

Not everyone has adsl uptimes running into weeks though. And dynamic IP address ranges are commonly blacklisted.

In reply to a post by AEP:

If you're running a mail server, you really need to have your router on all the time. So it doesn't really matter whether your address is static or dynamic.

How do you prevent non-voluntary disconnections? How much work is needed to make the mail server work if the IP address changes?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

How do you prevent non-voluntary disconnections? How much work is needed to make the mail server work if the IP address changes?

Dyndns can be employed to keep a static hostname even when the IP address changes. This doesn't negate the problem of dynamic IP address ranges being blacklisted though, and also failed or slow DNS updates can lead to mail being sent to the wrong IP address.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Out of 19 million broadband users in the UK - how many know how to setup a mail server, let alone have the desire to run one.

It might be more than you think.

I have to admit that in the years I've been here I've never seen the question of why anyone should run their own mail server discussed.

Personally, I haven't a clue why one should do so, but can see (I think) good reason not to.

Anyone care to enlighten me as to their advantages? And disadvantages.

Privacy, reliability, security.

Not everyone has adsl uptimes running into weeks though.

That's why mail servers do a DNS lookup to find the address of the remote server, rather than relying upon a known dotted quad.

And dynamic IP address ranges are commonly blacklisted.

I suspect that if static addresses become more common, and are misused in the same way then static address ranges will also be blacklisted (many already are).

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Anyone care to enlighten me as to their advantages? And disadvantages.

Sure.

Some people are geeks and like to do stuff this this.

Privacy. If you use Gmail then Google potentially can read your mail. Might be a reason for the paranoid, but paranoia isn't illegal.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Privacy, reliability, security.

Meaningless, unless you explain in what way. All three, in my ignorance hence the question, I would almost certainly class as weaknesses of in-house.

In reply to a post by AEP:

I suspect that if static addresses become more common, and are misused in the same way then static address ranges will also be blacklisted (many already are).

Indeed. But blacklist removal procedures exist, and provided the owner of the static IP address can keep it "clean", it will stay removed from blacklists.

How much work is needed to make the mail server work if the IP address changes?

It should be automatic; just a question of waiting for a DNS change to propogate; probably in the region of 24 hours maximum for the average TTL. If it's likely to be a problem you would make the TTL for your mail server's DNS record shorter. When I've had to change the (static) IP address of enterprise mail servers the change has not been a big deal. Bear in mind that most remote web servers won't have the address cached anyway.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Privacy. If you use Gmail then Google potentially can read your mail. Might be a reason for the paranoid, but paranoia isn't illegal.

I too am paranoid about google. I would not under any circumstances entrust my normal email to them or Hotmail or Yahoo. I don't really see that as answering the question.

Though its relevance to what MrSaffron said could be high. I wonder what proportion of the 19 million use those three, plus BT and I assume TT ISP email.

failed or slow DNS updates can lead to mail being sent to the wrong IP address

No. For starters, it's unlikely that the new host with that address will be running an SMTP server. And, if it is, it won't be accepting mail for your domain. At worst it will bounce the mail and the remote server should try again after an interval.

In reply to a post by AEP:

No. For starters, it's unlikely that the new host with that address will be running an SMTP server. And, if it is, it won't be accepting mail for your domain. At worst it will bounce the mail and the remote server should try again after an interval.

A static IP address sounds preferable to me.

Some ISP's use a large IP block and hand out individual IP addresses statically from this

A difference between a static block registered to a person/connection and a static IP served to a connection from a larger pool

Oh, I agree with you there. That's why I have a static IP address.

In reply to a post by AEP:

It should be automatic; just a question of waiting for a DNS change to propogate; probably in the region of 24 hours maximum for the average TTL. If it's likely to be a problem you would make the TTL for your mail server's DNS record shorter. When I've had to change the (static) IP address of enterprise mail servers the change has not been a big deal. Bear in mind that most remote web servers won't have the address cached anyway.

Fair enough. Though I'm very hazy about how long sending servers will retry, and what happens if the address is in use elsewhere in the meantime?

Commercial servers have fail-over provision to store incoming mail don't they? So they must feel it is necessary to cater for server failure or connection loss. And they aren't on dynamic IPs.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

too am paranoid about google. I would not under any circumstances entrust my normal email to them or Hotmail or Yahoo. I don't really see that as answering the question.

Ok. Would it not concern you if a bored employee of tsohost decide to have a gander at your mailbox though? Would you ever know?

Though I'm very hazy about how long sending servers will retry, and what happens if the address is in use elsewhere in the meantime?

SMTP servers are configured (or should be) to expect communication failure. Typically, if a message cannot be delivered the server will try again after 15 minutes; next time it will wait for 30 minutes, and so on. After enough failed attempts the server decides that the mail is undeliverable and returns it to the sender. Typically this will be after a number of days, which is far longer than this sort of DNS problem would last for.

If there does happen to be an SMTP server on the computer that now has the IP address (pretty unlikely) it will only be configured to accept mail for users in its domain, not that of the addressee. The mail won't be misdelivered, but it could be bounced back to the sender.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Privacy, reliability, security.

Meaningless, unless you explain in what way.

I thought it was obvious, but...

Privacy: Some may want their mail to not be stored on a remote server where others might access it. See the e-mail bit regarding data retention. Whether this applies solely to e-mails stored on ISP servers, or on all e-mail traffic passing through their network, someone else can enlighten me.

Reliability: A local mail server rather than a remote one will have less of a demand on it, so in theory will be less likely to fail. Weaknesses of in-house, as you put it are not something that can be addressed by residential users as there is no SLA (in many small business setups too). A repetitive problem will generally result in a customer leaving, rather than seeking compensation (which will be unlikely).

Security: Different from privacy. ISP mail servers will be higher profile targets for physical and virtual attacks, be they DDOS, spam and the rest. A local server will have a far smaller online footprint and be less susceptible to targeted attacks. Additionally, local e-mail filtering systems will be better configured to the local userbase, rather than using an ISP filtering system, which may block legit mail, or allow illegitimate mail (useless in other words).


It's all relative of course. Some folk are paranoid. Some are possibly exchanging mail with people on the fringes of the law. Some might just be geeky and enjoy the exercise, or they might have setup a system for a number of people in the house.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

But there are applications where static IP addresses are much more preferable, such as running a mail server. I don't think running a mail server is the sole preserve of businesses anymore, for privacy reasons an "in-home" mail server makes quite a lot of sense.

Indeed, I run one. After various experiences I'd far rather do that. It's why I won't be going to Infinity but will choose a different FTTC provider.

In reply to a post by AEP:

How much work is needed to make the mail server work if the IP address changes?

It should be automatic; just a question of waiting for a DNS change to propogate; probably in the region of 24 hours maximum for the average TTL.

24 hours would be too long. I know from my own experience that Amazon will give up sending an email after 12 hours. Unless it's changed in the last year or two.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by AEP:

If you're running a mail server, you really need to have your router on all the time. So it doesn't really matter whether your address is static or dynamic.

Not everyone has adsl uptimes running into weeks though. And dynamic IP address ranges are commonly blacklisted.

And very likely (as with Be) have port 25 blocked.

In that case I would say that Amazon's mail servers are misconfigured. Wherever I have worked the mail server would retry for at least two days.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Out of 19 million broadband users in the UK - how many know how to setup a mail server, let alone have the desire to run one.

It might be more than you think.

I have to admit that in the years I've been here I've never seen the question of why anyone should run their own mail server discussed.

Personally, I haven't a clue why one should do so, but can see (I think) good reason not to.

Anyone care to enlighten me as to their advantages? And disadvantages.

Put simply:I don't use any anti-spam software but I get zero spam(*).

Running my own server gives me greater control and allows me to give every contact their own address without having to actually do anything. The only time I have to modify the configuration is to block an incoming address that has gone bad. It's a great system that has served me well for over eight years and whilst it can be done using third party servers it's less elegant and usually incurs an additional cost. For a while I used my domain provider's server and had my mail server pull using POP3. Unfortunately that means I only get email on a schedule unless I want to spam the remote server with POP3 requests every five minutes

But other than that I have found reliability and recoverability to be better. My server failed a couple of months ago (a rare example of Windows update wrecking it). Everything was back up within two hours. By contrast the other servers I have used over the years have not come back for several hours especially if the failure occurs late in the working day or at the weekend.

But installing a mail server is actually pretty easy. I know of two Windows packages and they have installation Wizards that mean you just have to answer a few questions. I think they both even prompt you to contact your ISP to have the reverse DNS set up correctly and to create the MX records.

(*)My mail server gets plenty of spam. Over a dozen an hour last time I looked but incoming mail addresses have to meet a basic 'template' which stops random junk and then the address has to not be on the blacklist.

Edited by Andrue (Thu 18-Aug-11 15:45:40)

In reply to a post by AEP:

In that case I would say that Amazon's mail servers are misconfigured. Wherever I have worked the mail server would retry for at least two days.

I agree - mine at home is set to keep trying for a week although the delay on the last attempt is a couple of days. But misconfiguration or not - Amazon is a mail source that matters. I got so sick of adding independent shops to my blacklist that I've pretty much given up on them. I just buy everything through Amazon. Their mail system obfuscates the contact address so even their resellers don't know my address.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

It's all relative of course. Some folk are paranoid. Some are possibly exchanging mail with people on the fringes of the law. Some might just be geeky and enjoy the exercise, or they might have setup a system for a number of people in the house.

In my case originally it was because I thought it would be 'cool'. That was back when I thought it was 'hands on' though. I soon discovered that once installed and configured I almost never had anything to do with it so the geek effect soon fades

But I do like the control and since I used to be in data recovery I know how to ensure I good disaster recovery procedures. It's not something I have to do but it's something I prefer and would just consider moving back to third party provision to be a step backward.

Edit:One other thing - I can choose what the limits are. At present my inbox will accept any amount and size of email up to 850MB. That's because it will be stored on a 1TB drive that already has about 150GB on it. So feel free to email me a CD image if you want. It won't bother my sysadmin With advanced warning I can span the inbox over to another disk and increase the limit to 2.8TB so you can prolly email me DVD images if you ask me first

Edited by Andrue (Thu 18-Aug-11 15:53:40)

Got any spare mailboxes?

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Got any spare mailboxes?

I have an infinite number

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Got any spare mailboxes?

I have an infinite number

You must be using that new quantum reality hardware then that is infinitely large as it exists across all of the infinite universes. Or possibly just slightly exaggerated?

Is that the stuff that disappears if you look at it?

I run my own mail server but not at home. That to me is a bit daft but everyone is different.

Although mail does get retried a very common configuration is that after the first few hours the retry rate is massively slowed down to maybe something like once a day, with a give up time usually 3-5 days then that leaves after day 1 only a few retries. Some people dont even retry after one day to reduce load on their servers, my guess based on analysing data is roughly 10-15% of mail servers do this.