Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up

Paul Ferguson <> Mon, 29 January 1996 16:25 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13226; 29 Jan 96 11:25 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13219; 29 Jan 96 11:25 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09816; 29 Jan 96 11:25 EST
Received: from ([]) by (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id AAA12714 for <>; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 00:14:36 +1100
Received: from pferguso-pc ( []) by (8.6.10/CISCO.SERVER.1.1) with SMTP id FAA04274; Mon, 29 Jan 1996 05:11:50 -0800
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 08:12:37 -0500
To: Robert Elz <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Paul Ferguson <>
Subject: Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
Cc: Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <>,,,,

At 09:36 PM 1/29/96 +1100, Robert Elz wrote:

>That sounds like a perfect place for a dynamic address, however,
>if he had that, it would make life harder for me.   With his
>static address I can instal filters to give him more access to
>my system at home (which is basically permanently connected, and
>not a PC) than I allow all the rest of you.   (For Tony's
>benefit - no, this is not relying on source address filtering,
>I actually filter the packets that my system sends out, I will
>let it send packets to him that I won't let it send elsewhere,
>which has basically the same effect).

I can certainly understand the need for access control & security, but
with the use of a smart-card one-time password system, this is a moot

- paul