brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to NytOwl
Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter More than enough mail servers whether it is an ISPs mail server, hosted mail, a businesses e-mail server, etc. do use RBLs and do use the RBLs including dynamic address blocks to either block the SMTP session at the start of the session or will use the IP when it is part of a dynamic block to make a decision during spam scanning to filter the e-mail right into the spam box so most users won't even see the e-mail. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to NytOwl
Besides there are other applications other than mail servers where a static IP address would be desirable if not required. |
|
 PlatooN
join:2007-02-13
Kitchener, ON | reply to NytOwl
Not to mention many mail servers will use an rDNS lookup as a means of spam filtering.
I don't care what method of quazistatic IP you are using, it won't have proper rDNS in place. |
|
|
|
| reply to NytOwl
This has gotten out of hand.
The premise of this thread is simple. All I asked for is an official reason as to why TSI does not provide a Static IP option for its Cable Internet subscribers.
I would like a TSI staff member to answer this.
All the heated replies debating the merits of a true Static IP vs. utilizing Dynamic DNS with a Dynamic IP does not address my question.
If you want that debate to continue, please respectfully start a new thread.
Thank you. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by NytOwl:The premise of this thread is simple. All I asked for is an official reason as to why TSI does not provide a Static IP option for its Cable Internet subscribers.
The second sentence of my post answered your question. |
|
 nitzguyPremium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to NytOwl
said by NytOwl:This has gotten out of hand.
The premise of this thread is simple. All I asked for is an official reason as to why TSI does not provide a Static IP option for its Cable Internet subscribers.
I would like a TSI staff member to answer this.
All the heated replies debating the merits of a true Static IP vs. utilizing Dynamic DNS with a Dynamic IP does not address my question.
If you want that debate to continue, please respectfully start a new thread.
Thank you.
Ok, seems as though my rant was a bit off track, and thank you for setting me straight.
In regards to your question, this has been discussed ad nauseum since the introduction of cable, long story short, its not going to happen and has been weighed in by TSI....so as some people would say UTFSE....but basically we're just trying to save you some trouble here.... |
|
| reply to NytOwl
brad,
Yes, I did read your first reply, but I kept this going in hopes of getting something more official.
nitzguy,
Okay. It's unfortunate, but I guess that's what we're stuck with for the time being.
Thank you. |
|
| reply to NytOwl
everything HeadSpinning said.. and.. I think if people were to look up 'DUL LISTING' They might get it, and if they dont.. they have no business running a mail server |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to NytOwl
said by NytOwl:Yes, I did read your first reply, but I kept this going in hopes of getting something more official.
The issue was taken up with the CRTC and with the way that Rogers provisions the IP addresses within their network it would have caused serious scalability issues even if they were willing to even consider allowing TPIAs to offer statics plus they wouldn't have wanted to provide the RIP key to users so they would probably insist on using a pre-configured router from Rogers. I can see that being an issue with TPIA users as well. So for how much TPIA users do want statics the issue was too much of a pain to be able to realistically offer the feature. |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to NytOwl
Note that you can get yourself a static IP today by using a VPN service, but there are obviously downsides to this approach.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
nitzguyPremium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to brad
said by brad:said by NytOwl:Yes, I did read your first reply, but I kept this going in hopes of getting something more official.
The issue was taken up with the CRTC and with the way that Rogers provisions the IP addresses within their network it would have caused serious scalability issues even if they were willing to even consider allowing TPIAs to offer statics plus they wouldn't have wanted to provide the RIP key to users so they would probably insist on using a pre-configured router from Rogers. I can see that being an issue with TPIA users as well. So for how much TPIA users do want statics the issue was too much of a pain to be able to realistically offer the feature. +1. Because Rogers is more like a HUGE LAN, they use dhcpd or some other sort of DHCP solution to provide IP addresses, and they have provisions that when their scopes start to get full, their network admins just add more blocks into the scope to resolve any potential for "IP shortages"...problems with TSI when they had issues where they couldn't get IPs is probably because Rogers doesn't monitor those scopes or probably even care about those scopes...its like the Ron Popeil set it and forget it....versus a PPPoE authentication service which is a bit more customizeable I propose because I know nothing about the RADIUS server other than it exists and its a little more hands on for management purposes so you can do things like assign IPs to accounts and stuff.
If there are a small number of Static IP requirements on a network it can be met, but since Rogers was developed originally (and most Cable ISPs) as a residential service, things like that were not thought of....same reason why their change to IPV6 is going to be "interesting" at best, because their network is so huge right now that managing it has become almost too cumbersome....I don't know how I'd manage 2 million + IPs....I don't know how they do it now...
It sucks, it'd be great if they could offer a solution, but within the current constraints it would be an administrative nightmare, and Rogers argued that point to the CRTC and they capitulated...and in this case I'm going to agree with the incumbents....because it would just be too hard to manage.
Like Guspaz has said, a VPN does offer what you are looking for, granted with some extra hurdles on your end, but it is a solution... |
|
| reply to brad
said by brad:said by NytOwl:Does Rogers not permit it for TPIA customers on their network, or is there some other reason?
Rogers only offers static IPs for their business customers and it costs quite a bit. Due to the way in which static IPs are provisioned in their network it does not scale at all so they do not want to have this in use by their non-business customers or TPIA providers. They provide a Cisco router, although the vendor of the router doesn't really matter, and use RIP with a specific key. ya it costs so much that TSI as a product sells them at 4$/month and they even toss in newsgroups and that way a getting round traffic shaping...
ya tell the users some more lies fraud and other crap will ya ...gets old real quick
the fact is they could they just lazy and dont want too.
after all teaching some foreigner a few more keys to type or push is a hard thing to do ..... |
|
| reply to nitzguy
said by nitzguy:You guys consistently misuse the term "Static IP". It drives me bonkers.
If anything its a "reserved IP" that's obtained via DHCP. That's all that DSL does as well is that your username is associated with an IP....
Just my rant for the day, also for cable, based on the administration...forget about having a reserved IP address...it'd just be too much admin work when all they do is assign blocks of IPs in the Scopes that are required for each segment...
Anywho, rant off...carry on.
ya cause offering your usership the ability to be smart and run services of there own can't lead to more employment anywhere nor jobs or a more robust digital economy....
this is truly just attempt to monopolize there own services.
ITS ALSO WHY I DONT GET TSI CABLE.
so there rogers you lose just on that case alone |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
1 edit | reply to NytOwl
funny, you`re a complete moron. |
|
| reply to funny
said by funny:ya it costs so much that TSI as a product sells them at 4$/month and they even toss in newsgroups and that way a getting round traffic shaping...
ya tell the users some more lies fraud and other crap will ya ...gets old real quick
the fact is they could they just lazy and dont want too.
after all teaching some foreigner a few more keys to type or push is a hard thing to do .....
OK, so lets say TSI gives Rogers a block of IP addresses to dole out to customers. Rogers splits these IP addresses across several CMTSs, covering various nodes.
Lets say they manage to figure out which node a particular subscriber is, and assign them a static IP address out of the particular scope.
Lets say they do that for a bunch of users.
Now Rogers comes along and due to subscriber shifting, node splitting, etc., they either have to re-allocate part of that scope to another node on a different CMTS.
But WAIT - there are subscribers with reserved IP addresses within that scope, and some of them are going to end up on another CMTS.
Rogers then has to communicate this with Teksavvy to tell at least some of the customers that their "static" IP address isn't static, and its going to have to change.
This is a logistical nightmare waiting to happen. Reserved IP addresses from within the dynamic scope are NOT the solution. Its not a matter of "teaching some foreigner a few more keys".
Here's $5 bucks chronoss... I mean funny... go buy a clue.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net |
|
 LeathalPremium
join:2002-02-09
M1S0G4
kudos:2 | reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:You can't effectively run a mail server on a dynamic IP, as many (most?) RBLs list dynamic IP ranges. For uptime-critical stuff, even the TTL on dynamic DNS services is too high, although if something is that critical it shouldn't be hosted on a broadband line, business or otherwise.
To tell you truth this isn't entirely true as most ISPs including Teksavvy allow for SMTP relay from users on their network. Which is what I do and haven't had any problems for the last 2 almost 3 years. |
|
LeathalPremium
join:2002-02-09
M1S0G4
kudos:2 | reply to UnixMan
said by UnixMan: quote:
This is incorrect. I have ran a mail server for 10 years on a non-static IP without issues.
That was correct. And this is why This info is only valid if you ISP doesn't allow you to relay your emails through their SMTP servers. Otherwise its not valid. |
|
LeathalPremium
join:2002-02-09
M1S0G4
kudos:2 | reply to HeadSpinning
I doubt Funny would understand what you are saying!! Do you see how poor his grammar is? Why person communicates like in this day in age?
He must not be from around here!  |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to Leathal
said by Leathal:This info is only valid if you ISP doesn't allow you to relay your emails through their SMTP servers. Otherwise its not valid.
The comments are about attempting to deliver mail directly from an address within a dynamic block. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to Leathal
said by Leathal:To tell you truth this isn't entirely true as most ISPs including Teksavvy allow for SMTP relay from users on their network. Which is what I do and haven't had any problems for the last 2 almost 3 years.
It is true if you understand that the discussion was about NOT relaying through your ISPs mail server. That would have been pretty obvious from the thread. |
|
