Fixed i/p addresses?

Hi, folks.

I understand that IDNet offer fixed i/p addresses. I've had (what I think of as) a good look through the website, and have found no mention of this facility.

So, my question is:

Is the fixed i/p address the dafault here, or do I need to request it via support once connected?

Thanks.

Fixed Ip is provided automatically.

Scroll down to just after the price table:

All of our broadband services include as many personal email accounts as you require including SMTP, POP3, IMAP & SSL Webmail, free technical support, and a free Static IP Address.

Damn, I just KNEW it'd be there somwhere!

Thanks

I'm curious about this.

Do you mean you get a free static IP instead of a dynamically assigned one if you if you choose that option or is it compulsory?

Or is it in addition to a dynamically assigned one?

Personally I definitely would NOT want a fixed IP.

Edited by BlobbyBlobby (Tue 07-Nov-06 12:36:42)

AFAIK, a single, static IP address is standard and given automatically to new accounts (with no extra charge unlike some ISPs). If you're desperate for a dynamically assigned IP address, call CS and see what they can do. Out of interest, why the dislike of fixed IP addresses?


edit for typos

Edited by Yardley (Tue 07-Nov-06 13:40:18)

People that I've come across that dislike static IP's are usually people with false knowledge ie. some people think that by having the same IP, you'll leave yourself open to attack more so than having a dynamic IP. Also theres the others that like cheating in online games, and like being able to just disconnect and reconnect to evade bans.

If you have a fixed IP and someone attacks it, surely a dynamic IP would help in that situation?

Evading bans would also be a desirable reason for a dynamic IP too?

I don't recall ever being banned from a forum for example, but I know my kids have been in the past.

Personally, I prefer even a modicum of anonymity on the Internet and have no wish to be tied down to a fixed address.

I suppose the other side of the coin suggests that people who like fixed IPs are by nature self advertising, bragging, flawless perfectionists, that never make a mistake?

Or who want to run a web server with minimum hassle....

...aka self advertising?

I mean this from the perspective of a residential account, not a business account. There are obvious advantages for having a fixed IP as far as commerce is concerned.

Edited by BlobbyBlobby (Tue 07-Nov-06 21:47:35)

If it's a website for their own business, why not?

I don't see your objections to static IPs... whatever your IP, chances are it will be probed within 30 minutes of your going online anyway. Any number of tests have shown that.

And static or dynamic, if you're not behind 2 firewalls then you deserve all you get...

As for games... ignoring any moral aspects, you're just as likely to pick up a dynamic IP from someone who has already been banned. Same goes for email- you could pick up an IP from someone who's been blacklisted by your provider- it's happened.


Static IPs are much to be preferred, why do you think some ISPs can get away with charging for them?


edit- I missed your edit

2nd edit- typos

Edited by billford (Tue 07-Nov-06 21:55:12)

Typos! Yeah, my second name. Thank goodness for the edit button (time limited though it is on this forum eh?).

I've already said why I like dynamic IPs.

Why are static IPs preferable for a residential account?

Edited by BlobbyBlobby (Tue 07-Nov-06 22:27:53)

In reply to:

---

Why are static IPs preferable for a residential account?

---

• If you game, you can't pick up a previously banned IP (I discount your liking for evading a ban as immoral)
• Neither can you pick up a blacklisted IP from any other provider
• Websites, ftp sites, mailservers etc are much easier with a static IP (private individuals are perfectly entitled to run these)
• Some secure sites (eg some banks) will only talk to the IP you registered with
• Some facilities (eg VPNs I think, but could be wrong) will only work with a static IP
  

And if you're properly firewalled, there are no disadvantages unless you have to pay for it.

In reply to:

---

Personally, I prefer even a modicum of anonymity on the Internet and have no wish to be tied down to a fixed address.

---

Yes, there is no doubt that dynamic IP is more anonymous than fixed IP.

With dynamic, you can't leave as big a 'paper trail' as you could possibly do with fixed. E.g. Usenet postings, personal e-mails, forum postings* all contain your fixed IP and can be easily cross referenced.

*obviously visible to admins / mods ... (who could be corrupt)

In reply to:

---

Usenet postings, personal e-mails, forum postings* all contain your fixed IP and can be easily cross referenced.

---

They also contain your dynamic IP and the time/date- from those your ISP can trace you if requested to do so, just as with a static IP.

My ISP, yes, but not Joe Public or anyone else.

To him, it's just another IP from the ISP's dynamic pool.

With a fixed address, it becomes easier to start putting 1 + 1 + 1 together.

If you want to locate somebody, I doubt Joe Public would have the slightest idea where to start from even a static IP.

A black hat would have only marginally more trouble starting from a dynamic IP than from a static one- if somebody wants to find you and has the skills, they will.

Edited by billford (Tue 07-Nov-06 23:24:59)

That's a fair comment ... if you did know my IP I don't think you would find out anything about me, I don't use my real name anywhere ... well I do here, heh.

I'm just saying it isn't impossible, maybe difficult. If it bothered me that much, I wouldn't have an IDnet static IP

In reply to:

---

if you did know my IP I don't think you would find out anything about me

---

You're dead right- in this area I'm Joe Public, I wouldn't know where to start; even though I've a fair idea of what can be done, I don't know how to do it.

I do use my real name... but googling for Bill Ford will show you what you're up against

Probably a lot more can be found out from your Web browser than from an IP address Whether your IP is dynamic or not, they all belong to the same ISP so tracking you down wouldn't be that hard.

If you're really that paranoid, I suggest using some kind of anonymiser service and disable Javascript in your browser to name but a few.

Static IPs are convenient for me, as I run services from home that I like to access (Web, SSH etc).

Well, the assumption seems to be that the desirability of a dynamically assigned IP is to prevent someone tracking you down!

I never for a moment had that in mind with my objections towards a static IP.

For IP 'hiding' I suppose there's always anonymous proxies, but like free news servers are quite hard to find anyway.

It has nothing to do with paranoia. But, not having anything to advertise, then a dynamically assigned IP is more appealing than a static IP.

Perhaps the analogy is having just one suit that you have to wear for the next umpteen years?

You've probably never experienced any aggressive p2p clients that hammer your IP all day long either long after you've 'closed' the connection have you?

At least cookies are deletable.

I don't know what bank billford uses, but having used Internet banking for several years now with several banks and credit card companies, I've never been asked for a static IP yet.

In reply to:

---

I don't know what bank billford uses, but having used Internet banking for several years now with several banks and credit card companies, I've never been asked for a static IP yet.

---

LloydsTSB.

And nor have I, but when I was having trouble connecting once, the tech mentioned that a static IP gave them less problems, and that some companies insisted on one.

That was a few years ago, things may have changed.

In reply to:

---

Perhaps the analogy is having just one suit that you have to wear for the next umpteen years?

---

An exceedingly poor analogy... a better one would be a name that you have for the rest of your life, doesn't cause much in the way of problems...

If real (static) names are so 'preferable', why are Internet forums and newsgroups full of people using pseudonyms?

Edited by BlobbyBlobby (Thu 09-Nov-06 16:52:40)

One can only assume they have something to hide.... or they name themselves after their role models

In reply to:

---

One can only assume they have something to hide.... or they name themselves after their role models

---

My point exactly!

I would bet that that assumption is what a lot of people would jump to also.

Congrats.

If you want a dynamic IP the assumption is that you must be hiding something?

Wrong!

Edited by BlobbyBlobby (Thu 09-Nov-06 17:01:51)

In reply to:

---

If you want a dynamic IP the assumption is that you must be hiding something?

Wrong!

---

Of course it's wrong.... as is the assumption that you are more vulnerable with a static IP.

It's a pity you missed the irony in my post...

Nobody apart from you actually did make an assumption about being more vulnerable with a static IP.

I alluded earlier to the fact that if someone was attacking your IP then being able to get assigned a fresh IP would be desirable in that situation.

Edited by BlobbyBlobby (Thu 09-Nov-06 17:15:02)

In reply to:

---

Nobody apart from you actually did make an assumption about being more vulnerable with a static IP

---

People that I've come across that dislike static IP's are usually people with false knowledge ie. some people think that by having the same IP, you'll leave yourself open to attack more so than having a dynamic IP.

If you have a fixed IP and someone attacks it, surely a dynamic IP would help in that situation? ...Personally, I prefer even a modicum of anonymity on the Internet

there is no doubt that dynamic IP is more anonymous than fixed IP.

You stick to your opinion, I'll stick to mine.

Yeah, missed LadFromWales's opinion, sorry.

Gari's quote and my second quote refer to anonymity not vulnerability. I never made the assertion that static IPs were more vulnerable.

As for irony, well MrBlobby is a roll model, hehe.

If you saw my physique then you would definitely appreciate the irony.

Edited by BlobbyBlobby (Thu 09-Nov-06 17:41:17)

In reply to:

---

refer to anonymity not vulnerability

---

Same thing, as far as I'm concerned. If you're not worried about being vulnerable to something, why would you feel the need to be anonymous?

But it would explain our differences of outlook...

I expect someone will bring up MAC addresses before long but until then...

Vulnerability, I meant in the technical way LadFromWales said it i.e. open to attack by whatever means; syn scans; spyware; trojans etc.

Anonymity, I mean in any normal sense you would expect to use it.

We're talking about a change of address here, not identity, with the limited 'anonymity' that dynamically assigned IPs provide.

Say, you are being attacked. Don't you agree that it would be desirable to just re-sync the router and get another IP?

That situation occurs very often in p2p on a smaller scale sometimes long after you're done with it.

It's almost synonymous with spam.

With your e-mail address presumably you only give that to people who you want to contact you?

If/when you start getting spammed, you're lumbered with it just like with a static IP?

In reply to:

---

Say, you are being attacked. Don't you agree that it would be desirable to just re-sync the router and get another IP?

---

Wouldn't care to be honest, or probably even know- that's what the firewalls are for.

In reply to:

---

It's almost synonymous with spam.

---

Almost but not quite... IP attacks are easy to filter, spam isn't.

In reply to:

---

If/when you start getting spammed, you're lumbered with it just like with a static IP?

---

First part true- second part- if they can't get through they'll give up. Why should they continue?

Burying your head in the sand would probably work just as well too.

If someone is hammering on your front door, wearing some ear muffs will drown out the noise no doubt. But pressing the magic switch that moves you to a new address would be better?

It's been a long while since I did some syn scan tests with Zone Alarm (Yuck) and an old Origo router, but the results weren't pretty.

Maybe today's routers cope better as do the latest firewalls?

Anyway, static IPs aren't for me, though I can see reasons for their use in particular circumstances.

I have been using static ip addresses for years and years (3 ip addressess over 7 years) and have never had any problems from anywhere. Don't see the problem with static ip addresses especially when used with a router. No one has eer got through yet. I don't care about anonymity etc. I have no secrets and don't need to hide.

In reply to:

---

I have no secrets and don't need to hide.

---

Snap.

I've been using dynamically assigned IPs for years and am very satisfied.