Re:Banks, Arbitrary Password Restrictions and Why They Don't...
by nybble41 on Wednesday September 18, 2019 @04:59PM
(#21010133)
For clean handoffs within the same network, sure. But you also have roaming to consider, and the device may lose its connection temporarily and be assigned a new address when it returns.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Banks, Arbitrary Password Restrictions and Why They Don't...
by wool_gather on Wednesday September 18, 2019 @08:10PM
(#21011911)
Is there actually any advantage to having a dynamic pool of IP addresses like this? Associating a number from your IP block to a subscriber number seems far, far simpler and better.
Re:Banks, Arbitrary Password Restrictions and Why They Don't...
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Thursday September 19, 2019 @01:04AM
(#21013442)
Locality/size of routing tables. If you had a hundred million subscribers with fixed IP addresses moving all over the country, you essentially could not aggregate any routes, but would have to have a hundred million routes in your routing table, and/or you would have to push all the traffic from and to all subscribers through one central router, which in particular would add latency for any subscribers that currenty are at the other end of the country.
Re:Banks, Arbitrary Password Restrictions and Why They Don't...
by mnoorenberghe on Wednesday September 18, 2019 @11:11PM
(#21012906)
If you’re suggesting each subscriber gets a static IP then that’s much worse for privacy.
Re:Banks, Arbitrary Password Restrictions and Why They Don't...
by wool_gather on Thursday September 19, 2019 @12:00PM
(#21017460)
I'm speaking from the provider's point of view: they don't care about privacy. In fact, in the US there is a federal law that requires them to be able to associate network activity with a subscriber at the request of law enforcement.