PDA

View Full Version : What Are Static and Dynamic IP Addresses?



Winston001
16-08-2004, 07:07 PM
It seems important in the context of expanding broadband but I don't understand. I would like to better know the arguments regarding unbundling.

Cheers
Winston001

godfather
16-08-2004, 07:28 PM
I am not sure that there is any real relevance or importance to static vs dynamic IP addresses in the unbundling issue, for the average user.

A static address is a permanent IP address assigned to you by your ISP, and it will not change. A bit like your street address when you are married with children.

A dynamic IP address is one that changes every x days or everytime you log onto the internet as an example, it is assigned from a pool of addresses at random. A bit like your address when you were a young student, changing every few days to follow the sun/girls/food ...

A static address has the advantage of allowing a permanent location that others can access your PC at, for example if you run a server.
Thats a disadvantage as well, as you are a stationary target for hackers.

Personally I am quite happy with a dynamic IP address, its something I never need to know anyway. My router handles that invisibly.

Murray P
16-08-2004, 07:31 PM
As far as I can tell Winnie, the IP issue is being used by Telecom to maneuver the ISP's who have been negotiating for UBS access. Basically Telecom control the issuing of IP numbers and the ISP's want to be able to offer fixed IP's to their clients.

In most cases I don't believe it makes a huge difference to Telecom whether people get fixed or dynamic IP's (the internet address for your modem/router/PC depending on your setup) especially with more being issued world wide (ie, no shortage argument) but others would know more than me. Fixed IP's are often sold as an added extra to people who want to run a web or mail server or for off site connections to a home base/lan but, as I understand it, elsewhere this charge is for additional IP's. Telstra cable for eg, gives you a fixed IP as a matter of course, extra ones cost so much per month.

In my opinion, ISP's who can offer additional IP's independent of Telecom will feel more in control of their end of the structure, I think Telecom see's this as a thin end but, that is only conjecture on my part and could be well off the mark.

As per usual, the consumer is sidelined and given scant regard while this goes on, plus I reckon the whole thing is fixed.


Cheers Murray P

Growly
16-08-2004, 07:32 PM
I think that the dynamic IP is handy - especially when people get your IP banned.

drb1
16-08-2004, 10:57 PM
> It seems important in the context of expanding
> broadband but I don't understand. I would like to
> better know the arguments regarding unbundling.
>
> Cheers
> Winston001

Winston

Unbundling, Telecoms arrogant, self centered position on unbundling is one reason why a Trade "deal" similar to that obtained by Australia with the U.S. has not been forthcoming and will not be forthcoming!

Central to the mentioned "deal" was Telstras unbundling of the AU network, they are dragging their tails but it is happening. It is, and has been for some time U.S. policy that ALL new trade deals will include Telecom unbundling and access.

The government is fully aware of this and keeps it as quiet as is possible (don't forget telecom is still a labour Govt cash cow).

Telecom is interested in Two things Total market dominance and its massive profits (which Guarantee massive salaries and massive bonuses for senior executives). At the expense of the Whole National Economy.

Telecom is among the most unethical organization's in the country. They change the rules whenever the want to suit themselves. Legal obligations, irrelevant.

The majority of organized criminals in the southern hemisphere have higher Moral and Ethical standards than Telecom.

Don't forget every Aucklander with a land line is charged $80.00 (pa)more than Wellingtonians, because telecom CAN get away with it.

Internet by Woosh, voice by Vodaphone (since they were Bell South).
No Telecom land line needed, Wireless the way of the future, you want more of it, Then SUPPORT it.

D.R.B.

Winston001
17-08-2004, 03:39 PM
Thankyou everyone for that. Much clearer.

And DRB1 - that was a great, albeit polemic, explanation. Glad to see you expressing yourself rather than bottling it all up. :D

Graham L
17-08-2004, 05:16 PM
So hooray for Telecom. :D

They are protecting us from a "free trade agreement" with the disunited states? GOOD.

Free trade with that pack of thieves means: We will take all their products. Or else. They will take whatever products of ours which don't compete with their voters. That means, lamb, beef, steel, ... or anything.
They will subsidize their farmers. If we sell at a fair price, that's described as "dumping". They will penalise us for that.

We would have to "harmonise" just about all our laws with theirs. Only more so. Our legal and financial and political systems are not totally corrupt. Yet. Theirs are.

Telecom would be fine as a monopoly. If it was made into a public service. Or regulated. :D

andy
17-08-2004, 06:28 PM
The IP address is your address on the internet - sort of like your telephone number. It consists of a set of number blocks separated by decimal points and can look something like 255.190.3.29. This is in actual fact a decimalised (base 10) representation of the 32 bit binary (base 2) number that is your actual address. Depending on what sort of network you are part of, the first one, two or three blocks identify the network that you are connected to (your ISP or LAN at work or home), and the last blocks identify your place on that network. If you run an ISP service then you need a static, or fixed address to enable you to be found by others. The ISP's server operates a system called a DHCP (dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) server, which allocates an address within a given subnetwork range to your PC each time you log on. This address changes pretty much every time you log on (it is dynamic).
In some cases, if you have a home peer-to-peer network running through a hub, you may have to allocate static addresses to each pc.
If you connect to the internet through a router, then the router may have its own built in DHCP server, which allocates each pc on the sub-network an IP address.
Different again is the MAC address (Media Access Control Address). This is a unique ID number allocated to every node device on a network and is a set of six 2-digit hexadecimal numbers (base 16). It is built in to your LAN card or modem by the manufacturer and cannot be altered. This address identifies the manufacturer and the individual device.
You can find the details of your own equipment by using the "ipconfig /all" command (click on the Start button, go to Run. Type in Command. This will run a DOS window and you type in the ipconfig command (without the brackets) at the prompt.)

Disclaimer.
The above information is offered in good faith. Any additional info or corrections will be greatfully accepted. I did not submit this in any effort to start a flame war with those of greater knowledge. :-)

Regards,
andy

drb1
19-08-2004, 12:24 AM
> So hooray for Telecom. :D
>
> They are protecting us from a "free trade agreement"
> with the disunited states? GOOD.
>

>
> Telecom would be fine as a monopoly. If it was made
> into a public service. Or regulated. :D

Telecom are protecting their bottom line, if it was in their interest to have any form of trade agreement with the U.S. they would apply great pressure to make it happen.

The "Trade Agreement" between the AU. and the U.S. is not a "Free Trade " agreement is goods and services specific. Au Sugar Producers were a little disgruntled that sugar was not in the "Agreement".

Americans per se are : Ignorant, Arrogant, Culturally insensitive, Thieves.

Cheating at U.S. tertiary institutions has reached such endemic levels, that their degrees issued since 2001 are not worth the paper they are written on.

Our legal and financial
> and political systems are not totally corrupt. Yet.
> Theirs are.

Aruthur A Thomas, Peter Ellis, David Tamahere (Spelling ?), David Bain, Winstons "wine Box", Speed camera revenuing, I could go on for hours.

The problem with public service monopolies in "N,Z" is that they are used by corrupt Governments to reduce unemployment. Placing the unemployable in positions of minor authority were they still do nothing, With an inflated salary. So increasing the burden on the real tax payer.

drb1
19-08-2004, 12:30 AM
I forgot in the last one, did any one notice the Comerce commisions warning to the I.S.P'S. "NOT" to sign up to Telescams current bulk broadband deal as they (The Commision) "may yet intervene and regulate this issue to increase competition" Yesterdays N. Z. Herald.

mikebartnz
19-08-2004, 12:56 AM
>Telecom control the issuing of IP numbers
I don't think that is strictly correct. I think it is more to do with Telecom owning a range of IP's and anyone using their network has to use one of those numbers. By disallowing static IP's Telecom is dictating what other ISP's can offer.
I suspect the reason for Telecom not to want anyone using static IP's is so people can't set up permanent servers and I think it can effect some of the gamers.
I have used a program in the past which will tell you the range that Telecom or whoever owns but can't remember at the moment.

mikebartnz
19-08-2004, 01:08 AM
Hi there Graham there was a book I read a number of years ago by David Yerex ( I think that spelling is right ) titled "The Farming Fiasco" and was it enlightning as to how much the USA subsidised their farmers. Having read this book was one of the reasons I could not understand the 84 govt opening things up so much as the USA farmer was the most subsidised of the lot. Interestingly when the 84 govt took all subsidies from the farmers they still subsidised west coast caol. God I hate politicians

drb1
19-08-2004, 08:23 PM
> Hi there Graham there was a book I read a number of
> years ago by David Yerex ( I think that spelling is
> right ) titled "The Farming Fiasco" and was it
> enlightning as to how much the USA subsidised their
> farmers. Having read this book was one of the
> reasons I could not understand the 84 govt opening
> things up so much as the USA farmer was the most
> subsidised of the lot. Interestingly when the 84
> govt took all subsidies from the farmers they still
> subsidised west coast caol.

Because they were talked into using N.Z. as an experiment by: The World Bank the Wto and of course the U.S.

Ther are many articles and reviews of (The New Zealand Experiment).

lot of Bankruptcies to.


God I hate politicians

Ditto

zqwerty
19-08-2004, 09:12 PM
Yes drb1,

Hit the nail right on the head.

"Those who do not learn from history are condemmed to relive it".