Re^3: Net::IP convert ip to int

[afoken]

In the old days of the WWW, AOL users were forced to use HTTP proxies provided by AOL. The setup had the annoying feature of using a different proxy for each request, so that the requests from a single user appeared to come from a large set of very different IP addresses, while each single IP address was used by a large set of users. Websites that assumed constant client IP addresses were unusable, websites that assumed one user per client IP address had huge security issues. I don't know if AOL still uses this setup, things have changed a lot since then. But as far as I know, this setup does not violate a single RFC, and websites that can't handle this setup are broken, period.

HTTP Proxies have become more and more popular, especially in corporate environments; mainly for security and for filtering / censoring unwanted content (mainly malware and porn sites). Many mobile internet providers offer a low cost connection that uses private IP addresses for the mobile device and a forced, transparent HTTP proxy to reduce the data volume in their mobile networks. But unlike AOL, they seem to use only a single proxy, or at least try not to change the proxy during a dialup session.

Big internet providers have several IPv4 address pools, simply because they had to request a new block from time to time. Those pools are not continuous, but fragmented. Dial-up (and DSL) clients get a random IP address from the pool, and with each new dial-up, the IP address may change wildly. Some providers use several small regional pools with perhaps two, three or four IP ranges, some have use a large common pool for the entire state with a large number of IP ranges.

At least in Germany, DSL connections are disconnected after 24 hours, and usually, the IP address changes after the reconnect. Fixed IPv4 addresses are available for extra money.

Alexander

[cavac]

In the old days of the WWW, AOL users were forced to use HTTP proxies provided by AOL. The setup had the annoying feature of using a different proxy for each request, so that the requests from a single user appeared to come from a large set of very different IP addresses, while each single IP address was used by a large set of users.

Actually, that's probably one of the better ideas of AOL, but of course messy in it's execution. Using all the proxies round-robin, it's easier to even the system load. And even if one fails (and is not automatically offlined from the pool), users will still be able to use the internet (except with the occasional reload of the page required).

When the system was introduced, most of the web pages where static anyway, so the client's IP address didn't matter so much.

But as far as I know, this setup does not violate a single RFC,

Of course. By design, HTTP is a stateless protocol. That's why you have cookies and such.

and websites that can't handle this setup are broken, period.

Yes. And no. For corporate intranet stuff i still require the user to re-login after an IP address change. It's a very complicated technical/political thing. (BOFH-Reasoning: Frankly, i just really hate it when my users carry their running laptops with their spinning harddrives through half the building into a conference room and fiddling with the beamers VGA cable when there is a perfectly good PC already connected and ready to go... which of course always end up not having a network cable plugged in afterwards. But bringing his/her own laptop now serves one purpose less and saves considerable wear on my L.A.R.T. as well as on laptop drives.)