Is there any disadvantage to a static ip address?

[Eric Shubert]

On 08/20/2012 03:24 PM, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> On Mon Aug 20 12, Stephen wrote:
>> i think its partly intentional to clear servers that are not paying
>> for it. 6/month for a single static ip however i find kinda ridiculous
>> in price.
>>
>
> Considering what Cox charges or used to charge at least, that isn't
> that bad. For Cox you had to get a business acct for the lovely price
> of ~$100/month.
>

I agree that $6/mo is not that bad. I recently pretty much needed to do 
this as CL started blocking port 25 traffic, which made running my mail 
server a little dicier (not impossible, but more complicated than need 
be). With a static address, I'm no longer paying DynDNS $30/yr for 
custom dynamic DNS, so that offsets half the cost right there. But I 
digress.

I've seen dynamic IPs from CL (Qwest) change as infrequently as once 
every couple months, to as frequently as once every couple hours, at the 
same point in time. Seemed to me to be related to where the customer was 
in their network, like some areas were stable and others very unstable. 
I never did figure out what was causing their dynamic addresses to 
change so frequently.

There's no down side to having a static IP address that I'm aware of. 
Switching from dynamic to static was absolutely painless. The PPPoE 
configuration picked up the static address automagically, and that was 
that. Once you have the static address, you can unblock port 25 if you 
so desire, and change your own rDNS entry for your IP address as well. 
Pretty nice, methinks.

-- 
-Eric 'shubes'