Re: Frank Carmickle and Marco Paganini must die
Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> writes:
> How it is assigned is obviously (?) not important in this context. An IP
> address is usually considered "dynamic" if it is shared among many users
> (so NAT outside addresses may qualify as well).
So this is a different definition of "dynamic" than Adam's. I'm not
particularly interested in the semantic question of which is the
"right" definition; I'll use whichever.
Short of asking the ISP, there is no way of knowing if an IP address
is shared. I would note here that many many ISPs make a good-faith
effort to assign the same dynamic address to the same MAC address
every time, provided it is still available. This depends on the ISP
and their user population, and the ratio of users to dynamic addresses
of course, but it is still not uncommon.
Moreover, if my computer is always online, and my ISP promises to
renew leases rather than force a new address assignment when address
leases expire, then my IP address is, in fact, not shared in any
meaningful way.
That means that, using your terminology, such an address is, in fact,
static. Hrm.
> Very good ISPs report dynamic pools themselves to the DULs.
> Good ISPs mark dynamically-assigned addresses in the whois database or
> in the rDNS.
Why is this "very good"? Can you document for me which RFC recommends
or encourages this as a best practice?
> Bad ISPs do nothing of this, and DULs maintainers have to take some
> educated guesses. This works usually well (I'm marginally involved with
> maintenance of a major DUL, so I know what I am talking about) and
> mistakes are usually corrected in less than one day after affected users
> complain.
Curious. So MIT is a bad ISP?
Thomas
Reply to: