Multiple IPs

I'm with Zen and have a block of eight IPs. One is broadcast
xx.xx.xx.248; one is the ADSL router xx.xx.xx.247 and one is the
network xx.xx.xx.240. That leaves five addresses 241 - 246 for use. I
have a Draytek 2820 router which allows me to use these addresses
either via NAT or directly routed IP.

Eight IP's is the smallest subnet that is really practical. Four IP's
wastes three on the network, gateway and broadcast so only leaves one
spare.

It seems to be becoming increasingly difficult to find ISP's that will
give you static IP's, let alone eight of them. Not surprising really
as the stock of IP4 Ip's has been officially all allocated.

Andrew
--

In article <jc7e6k$5rp$(E-Mail Removed)>, Andrew Chapman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>It seems to be becoming increasingly difficult to find ISP's that will
>give you static IP's, let alone eight of them. Not surprising really
>as the stock of IP4 Ip's has been officially all allocated.

I know at least two ADSL ISPs who will still allocate an unlimited
number of IPs (for free, with justification): Goscomb
<http://www.goscomb.net/> and A&A <http://www.aaisp.net.uk>. I've used
both of them for ADSL and I'd recommend either.

However, it remains to be seen how long anyone continues doing this.
The fun will start when ISPs start trying to reclaim existing
allocations to support new customers.

--
-- river. | Free Usenet: http://news.rt.uk.eu.org/
Non-Reciprocal Laws of Expectations: | PGP: 2B9CE6F2
Negative expectations yield negative results.
Positive expectations yield negative results.

Andrew Chapman wrote:
> I'm with Zen and have a block of eight IPs. One is broadcast
> xx.xx.xx.248; one is the ADSL router xx.xx.xx.247 and one is the
> network xx.xx.xx.240. That leaves five addresses 241 - 246 for use. I
> have a Draytek 2820 router which allows me to use these addresses
> either via NAT or directly routed IP.
>
> Eight IP's is the smallest subnet that is really practical. Four IP's
> wastes three on the network, gateway and broadcast so only leaves one
> spare.
>
> It seems to be becoming increasingly difficult to find ISP's that will
> give you static IP's, let alone eight of them. Not surprising really
> as the stock of IP4 Ip's has been officially all allocated.
>

Ok, what do you want us to say?

Frankly why do you need more than one, anyway?

On 13/12/11 11:50, Andrew Chapman wrote:

> It seems to be becoming increasingly difficult to find ISP's that will
> give you static IP's, let alone eight of them. Not surprising really
> as the stock of IP4 Ip's has been officially all allocated.

Are you restricting yourself to IPv4 addresses ?
I have a block of 2^64 static IP addresses on IPv6, which are tunnelled
through my one static IPv4 address. I don't actually have 2^64 network
devices (!), just this was the smallest block offered (I'd have been
happy with a block of 8, as in 2^3).
http://tunnelbroker.net/

The same company also provides reverse DNS hosting so that forward and
reverse can be correct:
https://dns.he.net/

I've no connection with them, other than as a satisfied customer.

In article <jc7e6k$5rp$(E-Mail Removed)>, Andrew Chapman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>I'm with Zen and have a block of eight IPs. One is broadcast
>xx.xx.xx.248; one is the ADSL router xx.xx.xx.247 and one is the
>network xx.xx.xx.240. That leaves five addresses 241 - 246 for use. I
>have a Draytek 2820 router which allows me to use these addresses
>either via NAT or directly routed IP.
>
>Eight IP's is the smallest subnet that is really practical. Four IP's
>wastes three on the network, gateway and broadcast so only leaves one
>spare.

In practice you can probably safely use the "network" address as a host
IP as well. I don't know if anything still cares about it. I ran my
/29 like that with Zen for many years. Originally it was an oversight
in setting up an x.x.x.8 (my range was .8 to .15 with the router on .14)
but it never caused me any problems.

In fact, nothing outside your immediate link to Zen is even aware of
where your netblock starts and ends. I believe that some old networking
stacks used to assume that class A, class B and class C still applied,
but not for a long time now.

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:19:13 +0000, Nick Leverton wrote:

> In article <jc7e6k$5rp$(E-Mail Removed)>, Andrew Chapman <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>>
>>I'm with Zen and have a block of eight IPs. One is broadcast
>>xx.xx.xx.248; one is the ADSL router xx.xx.xx.247 and one is the network
>>xx.xx.xx.240. That leaves five addresses 241 - 246 for use. I have a
>>Draytek 2820 router which allows me to use these addresses either via
>>NAT or directly routed IP.
>>
>>Eight IP's is the smallest subnet that is really practical. Four IP's
>>wastes three on the network, gateway and broadcast so only leaves one
>>spare.
>
> In practice you can probably safely use the "network" address as a host
> IP as well. I don't know if anything still cares about it. I ran my
> /29 like that with Zen for many years. Originally it was an oversight
> in setting up an x.x.x.8 (my range was .8 to .15 with the router on .14)
> but it never caused me any problems.

Using your "network" address for a host depends on your networking stack -
Linux (at least kernel 3.0.0) doesn't want to play at all.

On 13/12/2011 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Andrew Chapman wrote:
>> I'm with Zen and have a block of eight IPs. One is broadcast
>> xx.xx.xx.248; one is the ADSL router xx.xx.xx.247 and one is the
>> network xx.xx.xx.240. That leaves five addresses 241 - 246 for use. I
>> have a Draytek 2820 router which allows me to use these addresses
>> either via NAT or directly routed IP.
>>
>> Eight IP's is the smallest subnet that is really practical. Four IP's
>> wastes three on the network, gateway and broadcast so only leaves one
>> spare.
>>
>> It seems to be becoming increasingly difficult to find ISP's that will
>> give you static IP's, let alone eight of them. Not surprising really
>> as the stock of IP4 Ip's has been officially all allocated.
>>
>
> Ok, what do you want us to say?
>
> Frankly why do you need more than one, anyway?

Perhaps he has > 1 network device (haven't we all) and doesn't
want to use that crude workaround known as NAT?

--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Graham. wrote:
> On 13/12/2011 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Andrew Chapman wrote:
>>> I'm with Zen and have a block of eight IPs. One is broadcast
>>> xx.xx.xx.248; one is the ADSL router xx.xx.xx.247 and one is the
>>> network xx.xx.xx.240. That leaves five addresses 241 - 246 for use. I
>>> have a Draytek 2820 router which allows me to use these addresses
>>> either via NAT or directly routed IP.
>>>
>>> Eight IP's is the smallest subnet that is really practical. Four IP's
>>> wastes three on the network, gateway and broadcast so only leaves one
>>> spare.
>>>
>>> It seems to be becoming increasingly difficult to find ISP's that will
>>> give you static IP's, let alone eight of them. Not surprising really
>>> as the stock of IP4 Ip's has been officially all allocated.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, what do you want us to say?
>>
>> Frankly why do you need more than one, anyway?
>
> Perhaps he has > 1 network device (haven't we all) and doesn't
> want to use that crude workaround known as NAT?
>
Works for me and 100 million others..

On 13/12/2011 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Frankly why do you need more than one, anyway?

Graham. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Perhaps he has > 1 network device (haven't we all) and doesn't
> want to use that crude workaround known as NAT?

There's always IPv6. IIRC I have been allocated a /64 for my own use.
Chris

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:58:18 +0000, Chris Davies wrote:

> On 13/12/2011 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Frankly why do you need more than one, anyway?
>
> Graham. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Perhaps he has > 1 network device (haven't we all) and doesn't want to
>> use that crude workaround known as NAT?
>
> There's always IPv6. IIRC I have been allocated a /64 for my own use.
> Chris

I got a /48 !



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor