On 2016-06-08 13:06, James Knott wrote:
On 06/07/2016 10:28 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-06-08 03:46, James Knott wrote:
On 06/07/2016 09:35 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Yes, virtually static would suffice for most people. We would have to use the equivalent to dyndns if we wanted to, say, give some one a link on our computers to a file or photo or whatever. Which means an extra step (an intermediary) anytime we want any IoT service.
I use a regular DNS server, not dyndns. While my IPv4 address is DHCP, the host name if fixed, dependent on modem and router MAC addresses. So, I just use an alias on the DNS server that points to that host name. Works fine. So far, for IPv6, I've just used the actual addresses to create AAAA records.
You can, because you get a practically static IP. We can't, because we don't.
Most people, with our current Ipv4 connections, get a new IP the instant there is a glitch in the connection. Be it the wind moving the copper cables or the router being unplugged.
That is not the way DHCP is supposed to work. You're supposed to have a lease time, during which you "own" the address. As long as you renew before the lease expires, you should retain the same address.
I know, but ISPs perverted that on most places. Yours is highly unusual. Of course, they have the excuse (on IPv4) that the pool of addresses was too scarce, so they have to reuse as soon as possible. But they could have a grace period of 5 minutes, to allow for glitches. They choose not to. And they will do the same on IPv6. Because they can. Very funny when on police movies they find the IP of the bad guy and correlate to a house on seconds. Ha!
As mentioned, my IPv4 address is virtually static. But even if it wasn't, as long as the host name is fixed, it doesn't matter. The alias will still work.
You have to update the DNS server fast enough, and the expiration time of the DNS entry must also be short, for this to work.
This is not what was supposed to be internet when it was invented. Everyone was supposed to have a fixed IP, so that we could connect with anyone we wished for whatever reason we wanted.
That's one of the reasons NAT is bad.
Yep. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)