From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Sep 13 1:36:38 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.freebsd.org.uk [194.242.128.198]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15359155AE for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 01:36:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from keep.lan.Awfulhak.org (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA31250; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:36:20 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from keep.lan.Awfulhak.org (brian@localhost.lan.Awfulhak.org [127.0.0.1]) by keep.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA53625; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:41:17 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <199909130841.JAA53625@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: "Martin-Legene, Robert" Cc: "'muditha@seychelles.net'" , list@inet-access.org, Freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: pricing question? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 13 Sep 1999 01:06:24 PDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:41:17 +0100 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [.....] > When I worked for an ISP, a private subscriber could not be given > a fixed IP. If you had a corporate dial-in you could get even blocks > of IP##. Of course the price was noticably different. But private > customers "doesn't need a fixed IP#" (yes, you may flame me now) ;-) Ok :-) IMHO everybody needs a static IP number. I can't see any reason a = corporate would need a static IP number when a private doesn't. Of course the ``correct'' thing would be to have the NASs smart = enough to allow the client to request the IP number that they had = last time and allocate it if they can. Currently, no NASs that I = know of are smart enough to do this (except ppp(8) of course!). With lots of different pieces of hardware, each of which has a = different block of IP numbers to allocate, it becomes difficult from = the NASs point of view, but this is the same thing that we're all = faced with in an MP environment. I think they should either just = create the back-channel, or else people should put pressure on the = telcos to make them get smarter and deal with this sort of stuff at = their end (is that possible? I don't know much about how much the = telco does and how much the ISPs NAS does). As a minimum, the NAS could *at least* dish out the same IP number if = it's in the local block and is currently unused. That way people = with a dynamic IP can sometimes get lucky when they didn't mean to = let their connection time out :-] > -- Robert Martin-Leg=E8ne > The opinions expressed are only my own, and does not reflect > the opinions of Intel. -- = Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message