More than 8 static IPs

[tamino]

I've been a very happy Sonic customer (two-line bonded Fusion, 8 static IPs) for about a year and a half now. No downtime or any other problems -- it's been great.

For most of that time I've been living on my own, with no housemate, and what guests I've had haven't really needed more than a couple of IP addresses. I had to play some tricks to make sure that things that didn't need IP addresses didn't get them, but 8 IPs has been workable, on the whole.

A couple of months ago, I acquired a housemate. This housemate has... a lot of devices. A desktop, a couple of laptops, a cell phone that wants to use wifi, etc.

We're at the point now where 8 IPs is just, simply, unworkable. So the question is, what to do about this.

One option is to downgrade the two-line bonded Fusion, to two single-line Fusions, each with 8 IPs. But I've gotten really used to my nice 3-4 Mbps Annex M upstream...!! I don't want to give that up! I really like the bonded service.

Another option is Comcast, which will give us a /28 to get us up to 13 usable IPs, which I think would be enough for our needs.

Money is not a problem. I would happily give Sonic an extra $40/month for two blocks of 8, especially since that would actually total up to 16 usable addresses, which is three more usable ones than Comcast, since Sonic does bridging and Comcast gives you a CIDR block.

Is there *any* chance of this happening? I like Sonic. I really don't want to switch to the big evil Comcast empire. I really, really don't. Sonic is an ISP that I genuinely *like* and feel loyal towards.

[kgc]

Why not use NAT, at least for the devices which don't need publicly addressable IPs?

[tamino]

I already have a NAT network, which I'm using for the laptop that I'm typing this on, and also for the *host* OS that all of my VMs run inside (the VMs themselves get real IPs). Which means the host OS can get to the internet to download updates etc, but the guest VMs have real addresses.

It's still cramped in here...! Even if my housemate were to put a couple of his devices on the NAT side of things, then that might alleviate the current "over the limit" condition, but then where does that leave someone who happens to come over and wants to get on the network?

My question still stands.

[aw]

but then where does that leave someone who happens to come over and wants to get on the network?

Do your houstguests typically bring servers over? If not, could they not just go behind nat? Generally only devices running services that need to be accessible from the outside need a public IP address. A cell phone, for instance, should always be behind NAT.

[tamino]

I'm torn between replying in depth, and just saying "My question still stands".

To some extent, I think market forces are at work here. If 16 IPv4 addresses costs, say, $100/month more than 8, then that's a bigger incentive to "cut deeper" and NAT more things, than if 16 were to cost $40 more than 8.

Every time you put something on a NATed network, you make it inaccessible via ssh/scp from the outside. You also make any long-lived ssh connections you may have to or from it, more vulnerable to being disconnected if the NAT hiccups or reboots.

So if all of that annoyance has a dollar value, then what I am asking is: How can I pay that additional dollar value, and purchase more of the resource that is now suddenly in higher demand due to my household having grown?

My question still stands.

[aw]

Every time you put something on a NATed network, you make it inaccessible via ssh/scp from the outside.
My question still stands.

This is not correct. You just have to forward necessary ports on your router. I have multiple servers all running SSH on different ports behind NAT on a single IP address.

I cannot speak for Sonic, but my guess is that you would need to justify why you would need more than 8 static IP addresses. The world is running out of IPv4 space, and more and more things are going to have to be behind NAT connections.

So yes, your question still stands, but I believe you're asking the wrong question

[tamino]

Every time you put something on a NATed network, you make it inaccessible via ssh/scp from the outside.
My question still stands.

This is not correct. You just have to forward necessary ports on your router. I have multiple servers all running SSH on different ports behind NAT on a single IP address.

I think you touched on something that is one of the reasons why I'm more comfortable using NAT, myself, than asking guests or other people in my house to use it.

Being behind a NAT, if you aren't the one who controls the network (and even sometimes if you are), really feels *bad*; it feels like being made into a second class citizen. You have to ask The Guy With The Password any time you want a port forwarded. If The Guy With The Password is unavailable right then, sorry, you can't have that port right now.

And even if you do get a port forwarded, you're still stuck trying to explain to everyone else why your ssh port is 12345. It's embarrassing. That's a burden that I'm (somewhat) willing to take on, as it relates to certain of my own systems. But it's embarrassing to have to offer a NATed IP address to a guest or housemate.

I started the process of signing up with Comcast this morning. At least that will get us a /28. I think that'll be enough to clear up the current shortage. And there's a 30 day window to cancel if Sonic does come through with something.

Thanks for the responses, everyone!

[tamino]

As an addendum: The amount that Comcast is charging me for a circuit with 5 Mbps upstream (i.e. more or less parity with two-line bonded Fusion, assuming Annex M) with a /28 is almost exactly $40 more than what I'm paying Sonic right now, for 8 bridged. That doesn't include phone service, which you get for free with Sonic, but *more or less* I think we've demonstrated that the market has priced 5 extra usable IPs at about $40.

[dane]

Sorry, eight statics is the most we offer on Fusion.

I'd suggest giving one to each housemate, and letting each of them manage them as they like (their own NAT, etc). This may eliminate the issue of you controlling the router that manages the NAT, and them being unable to control their destiny. Each can PAT and NAT to their heart's desire. =)

(If you have more than seven roommates - sorry!)

-Dane

[tamino]

Dane -- thanks for the response. I mean that completely un-ironically. If you hadn't posted on this thread, I would still have had this niggling feeling "but maybe I could find somebody who would be willing to make an exception". I posted on the forums, rather than calling up support, specifically because I wanted to cast a wider net for people who might be willing to bend things a bit. And... well... I've just gotten the most definitive possible answer I could have hoped for.

That doesn't mean I'm *happy* about it, but it means I can move on and stop wondering about what-ifs.

So -- thank you!!