Ta. Yes, I've been less than keen to host it locally for that reason. I'll look into regular upload solutions.

Not something we offer i'm afraid.

It's something we've thought about but there just isn't enough demand for us to set aside a pool of addresses for it.

Matt

Have you misread the question Matt? Or do I have a misconception.

He wants dynamic, specifically not fixed. You are saying you only offer fixed IP addresses? Surely that is more expensive than dynamic with a few fixed?

In reply to a post by uno:

Not something we offer i'm afraid.

It's something we've thought about but there just isn't enough demand for us to set aside a pool of addresses for it.

Matt

so there will be no way for me to change my ip address then ?

Nope, I read it correctly

It's much more efficient for us to use static addressing and would be a waste to set a pool aside for dynamic addresses that are rarely requested.

There are no differences in cost for us, we pay our yearly RIPE fees and they're the same regardless if we static or dynamically assign.

Matt

Unfortunately, no.

If you need a dynamic address, or one that changes regularly, we're not going to be the ISP for you i'm afraid.

Matt

OK, thanks Matt.

It's probably bigger ISPs where dynamic is cheaper. The reason being, as I'm sure you know but a few readers may not, they can safely greatly reduce the number they reserve.

I wouldn't say cheaper.. especially taking in to consider the changes in the RIPE charging scheme for this year.

There are the bigger/cheaper providers that offer dynamic as default and sometimes don't offer the ability for static but there are also some that offer static for a cost.

In the days of dialup, RIPE suggested the use of dynamic addressing as this was far more efficient due to the nature of such connectivity but now with always on, permanently connected, static addresses make much more sense.

We've never offered dialup and decided to only offer static addresses, for no additional cost - why should you have to pay for a single static address, or be on a higher package for one?

Matt

In reply to a post by uno:

Nope, I read it correctly

It's much more efficient for us to use static addressing and would be a waste to set a pool aside for dynamic addresses that are rarely requested.

There are no differences in cost for us, we pay our yearly RIPE fees and they're the same regardless if we static or dynamically assign.

Matt

could i simply buy 4 static ip's then and change between then if i am being ip flooded

In reply to a post by SC0TTISH:

Im going to be changing to xilo adsl max premium soon and wanted to know if anyone knows the kind of ping times i should expect

Unless it triggers a retrain on your line (and you have interleaving at present), it won't make any difference unless you are routed differently.

The factors which influence ping mostly on UK ADSL connections are: Interleaving on the Line and ISP Routing.

What people are saying about how far you are away from the server (As long as it is in the UK) doesn't really make much of a difference.

For instance, back in 2010 before IPSC was rolled out on my connection, I used to get a 13ms ping to the BBC and a 12ms ping to my exchange so it took around a millisecond to get from the exchange to the BBC.

Now in 2012 on 21CN, I have an 8ms ping to the exchange, and an 17-18ms ping to the BBC due to new routing. Both the old connection and new connection was/is on FAST.

Exchange to the internet is still mostly fiber, so it isn't a limitation there.


As I said it won't make a difference to your ping unless you have more priority on a congested DSLAM, your line is switched to FAST or you are routed differently.