Holding on to a dynamic IP address

If you have a router set up properly why would you need a static IP address ?

Your computers inside the router are all on local IP addresses using DHCP from the router, so there is no need for a static IP unless you are trying to run a server.

That's exactly why I am trying to do, run a web server... I don't want to subscribe to the service that offers static IP addresses...

I leave my system on all the time, so I seldom see a new IP. Most dynamic IPs are reassigned only if you allow your lease to lapse for quite some time. Keeping the modem and router on should prevent this from happening only if the router requests a new lease. I believe that is done by the computer.

There are other reasons to need a static IP, such as wanting to allow FTP access, or VPN.

You do know that most cable companies, and some DSL suppliers prohibit running servers....

You "own" an IP address for the duration of the DHCP lease. With my ISP, the lease period is (IIRC) seven days. As long as you continue to renew the lease, your IP shouldn't change (yes, I know of some stupid ISPs that force a change). My IP is virtually static, unchanging, unless some physical change, requires a new IP. Also, with some ISPs, including mine, the host name is consistent, so even if the IP changes, the host name will still give the current address..

He might want to access his system from elsewhere. It then helps, to know the IP.

There are ways to handle that with a dynamic address as previously reported. If you have a website on the internet, you can also use that to supply access to the current dynamic IP address in addition to the method stated.

Can still be done with a dynamic IP. Also you may have trouble running a server depending on what your ISP will allow (as already stated).

Go to

Regards

Bill

prohibit

I'm only planning on running a web server that serves only html documents. I wont be serving any large files at all. I don't see why my ISP would disapprove of that...

doesnt matter why, only if they do or not.

Many ISPs provide web space.

If you use up significant bandwidth, then other users on your node will begin to complain about slow access, and then the cable company will become interested. If usage is minimal, they probably will neither notice, nor care.

Read your terms of service agreement. If it says that you may not run a server, then the ISP disapproves and it doesn't really matter what you think.

I assume he's capped at 256Kb or 512Kb, so it really wouldn't matter to his neighbors now - would it ?

The man is allowed 256Kb (for example) upload bandwidth - why should that bother any his neighbors if he's using most of it ?

He could use that much upload during heavy dowload usage just in request/reponse blocks and the like - not including any content.

His server can't be *busy* by definition - he doesn't have the bandwidth.

I wasn't arguing with the AUP, just the rationale for it. There should be enough bandwidth for every user to use a good chunk of their 256Kb and it shouldn't matter how. But that's my opinion and I don't think that's why the ISPs don't allow servers - they have reasons besides bandwidth. Everyone should be able to get theirs without impacting anyone else - nothing sad about that.

Cable internet systems are designed to give reasonable response, with typical home usage. Running a busy server means someone is using more than others, of a shared resource.