From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:03 PM +0100 Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Personally I would solve the problem by going the other way. Get rid
of dynamic IP addresses
Interesting idea. It's my understanding that dynamic addresses are used due > to the
IPv4 shortage, so if we can push for more IPv6 deployment, we get the technical means to
get rid of dynamic addresses. (Aside from addresses, > are there other configuration
settings that need to be handed down by DHCP? > Does IPv6 auto-config take care of DNS
and routing?)
Dynamic addresses are rather overused in that case. This collection of
machines is behind a firewall connection that is ALWAYS on unless the
physical lines leading to this building are severed. (This has happened
with Santana winds. A 120 MPH wind is "amazing" to say the least.) The
UPS on that machine, and several others I use, will hold us up on line
for at least 9 hours based on actual testing. So "why not give us a
simple static address and be done with it?" I think the answer is that
Earthlink and Verizon (wire and actual internet provisioner) think that
they can get away with charging more for a static address. Other than
that there's no reason for dynamic addresses on high speed connections.
{O.O} Joanne said that
