Topic 'Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter' in forum 'TekSavvy' - dslreports.com

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:13:29 EDT

Leathal posted :

said by brad:

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.

Yes but people brought up in this thread that sending email would be an issue. I am adding my 2 cents.

Thanks.. helps if you read the threads fully :)

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:11:13 EDT

brad posted :

said by Leathal:

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.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Sun, 30 Dec 2012 23:00:27 EDT

brad posted :

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.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:05:52 EDT

Leathal posted : 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! :)

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:59:56 EDT

Leathal posted :

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.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:58:37 EDT

Leathal posted :

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.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:05:26 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

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

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Sun, 30 Dec 2012 17:59:01 EDT

brad posted : funny, you`re a complete moron.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:14:42 EDT

funny posted :

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

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:11:48 EDT

funny posted :

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.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 23:34:51 EDT

nitzguy posted :

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...

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:42:02 EDT

Guspaz posted : 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

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:35:34 EDT

brad posted :

said by NytOwl:

Yes, I did read your first reply, but I kept this going in hopes of getting something more official.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:52:23 EDT

ForSaken posted : 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

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 05:14:47 EDT

NytOwl posted : 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.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 05:04:42 EDT

nitzguy posted :

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....

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:05:35 EDT

brad posted :

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.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:58:45 EDT

NytOwl posted : 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.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:31:39 EDT

PlatooN posted : 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.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:30:31 EDT

brad posted : Besides there are other applications other than mail servers where a static IP address would be desirable if not required.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:26:46 EDT

brad posted : 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.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:23:29 EDT

Inssomniak posted : ^^ Everything HeadSpinning said..

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:19:18 EDT

HeadSpinning posted :

said by 80289148:

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

Sorry I don't click links. And I am running one so I know it works.

I'll click it for you:

Why mail to and from a dynamic DNS Host does not work reliably

No matter what they tell you, mail to and from dynamic DNS Hosts does not work reliably.
At least without TLS it isn't. Here's how it works with TLS: »www.thalmann.de/postfix-dialup.html

Receiving mail

Why receiving mail does not work reliably:
If you register your dynamic IP in a dynamic DNS provider like dyndns.org, your dyndns.org hostname is assigned your dynamic IP
If your machine loses the internet connectivity, then the hostname will still point to your former IP.
Now somebody else gets your former IP:
The computer has nothing listening on port 25:
No problem!
The computer has a properly setup MTA on port 25:
Your mail will be bounced! This is bad.
The computer has an open relay MTA on port 25:
Your mail will be relayed by this machine.
The computer has a blackhole MTA.
Your mail will be lost! This is bad.
Sending mail

Why sending mail does not work reliably:
Nowadays, many providers don't accept mail from dynamically assigned IP pools (like your dialup / DSL IP range). This means you must use the relayhost of your ISP.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:12:08 EDT

brad posted :

said by nitzguy:

It's the same thing! The whole point is the IP address does not change, hence static. It is irrelevant if its hard coded in some config file/registry or if its assigned via DHCP / IPCP (PPP).

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:58:34 EDT

80289148 posted :

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

Sorry I don't click links. And I am running one so I know it works.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:58:31 EDT

80289148 posted :

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

Post all the links you want. The fact that it is running means it works.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:21:48 EDT

UnixMan posted :

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

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:02:14 EDT

80289148 posted :

said by Guspaz:

This is incorrect. I have ran a mail server for 10 years on a non-static IP without issues.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:26:05 EDT

Guspaz posted : IPCP is normally used to assign the IP address over PPPoE. There's no difference between a static and dynamic IP to the customer; it simply either always assigns the same IP, or it doesn't. Either case happens identically.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:17:51 EDT

Grump posted : Your misinformation is driving me bonkers. Who says a static has to be obtained via DHCP? Most static IP deployments are manually specified on the WAN interface because a DHCP server going down is a failure point. Also, DSL is typically PPPoE, which doesn't use DHCP for static IP assignments. It's usually done with Framed-IP-Address via radius.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:47:39 EDT

nitzguy posted : 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.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:14:34 EDT

Guspaz posted : 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.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:55:13 EDT

Gimli posted :

said by brad:

said by Gimli:

blah blah blah
buy router with DNS service update ability and sign up for free host/ redirect with dyndns or noip.

blamo - never failing DNS name pointing to your IP - whatever it may be or change to.

that's not the same thing.

Pray tell then, what exactly you are doing that dynamic DNS wont let you do.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:37:33 EDT

brad posted :

said by Gimli:

that's not the same thing.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:59:42 EDT

Gimli posted : blah blah blah
buy router with DNS service update ability and sign up for free host/ redirect with dyndns or noip.

blamo - never failing DNS name pointing to your IP - whatever it may be or change to.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:46:48 EDT

brad posted :

said by d4m1r:

What's a static IP? Having the same IP for a long period of time/forever (theoretically).

What does my method achieve? The same IP for 2-3+ years if not longer (I switched from Rogers to TSI when I finally lost it). I'll leave it to the OP to decide :uhh:

I would say an IP that does not change in any unplanned manner and does not change because of some network related event(s) or replacement of equipment. With cable and DHCP that is likely to happen.

No, your "method" is a gamble at best. It will not guarantee you have the same IP for any particular period of time. With TSI you're a lot less likely to have the same IP for any extended period of time at all. I've been with TSI and through a variety of events I've had at least 5 IP address changes in 3 years. .e.g. node splitting, upstream/downstream channel bonding being enabled, cable network outages, router malfunction incident, etc.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:27:02 EDT

d4m1r posted : What's a static IP? Having the same IP for a long period of time/forever (theoretically).

What does my method achieve? The same IP for 2-3+ years if not longer (I switched from Rogers to TSI when I finally lost it). I'll leave it to the OP to decide :uhh:
--
www.613websites.com ● Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:22:43 EDT

brad posted :

said by d4m1r:

You can pretty much get a static IP for free though....It is not 100% fool proof, but generate a new MAC address for your router, and reset it and power down the modem for 5 minutes.

That's not even close to being a static IP or "pretty much" static IP.

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:56:47 EDT

d4m1r posted : You can pretty much get a static IP for free though....It is not 100% fool proof, but generate a new MAC address for your router, and reset it and power down the modem for 5 minutes.

Plug it back in, and you should have a new IP. As long as your modem/router don't reset, you will keep that IP. This is unless Rogers hard resets you/does maintaince in your area for a long period of time but using this method, I've been able to have the same IP for 2-3 years. Even if either DC, you still might get that IP back as well if it hasn't been assigned to someone else.
--
www.613websites.com ● Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting

Re: [Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Inter

Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:48:44 EDT

brad posted :

said by NytOwl:

Does Rogers not permit it for TPIA customers on their network, or is there some other reason?

[Cable] Reason for no Static IP Availability for Cable Internet?

Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:12:08 EDT

NytOwl posted : Hello everyone,

I've learned through various posts in this forum that it's not possible to subscribe to receive a Static IP if you're on Cable.

What I wonder, however, is the reason for this.

Does Rogers not permit it for TPIA customers on their network, or is there some other reason?

Thank you!