Gerber is correct that a dynamic IP address is "leased" for the duration of a logon session, or for a preset interval of time. IPSs charge more for a fixed IP address, often MUCH more because that IP address has to be dedicated and hardware resources must be permanently allocated to that IP address. During the course of a day a given dynamic IP address may be used by multiple users thus reducing the ISP's physical hardware requirements. There is also an assumption on the part of ISPs that a fixed IP address is likely to be used for web hosting and the probability is it will use a lot more bandwidth.
Artie, I think you may be confusing NAT (Network Address Translation) with a dynamic IP address. NAT is a technology used in routers and does provide some security on local area networks. Rather than my attempting to describe NAT in detail I will refer you to
this Wikipedia article.
Thanks, joemike, but either I was my usual obscure self or you misunderstood my question.
I was asking about the behavior of a cookie placed during one (dynamic IP address) browsing session and
not cleared before its "host" website was revisited in a succeeding session (i.e. one with a different address).
Will there be a correlation of addresses, with info gathered during the second visit being appended to that gathered during the first, or will the info gathered from each address be unique to it?
Thinking about it, though, it doesn't seem like it would matter, because with addresses being passed around from user to user, if "n" different users visit the same site, the info accumulated by its cookies will be a mish-mash of info gathered from all of them, and if there's only one user visiting a particular site, over time, that user's info will be splintered among "x" different users identified by "x" different IP addresses.
Either way, it seems like grelber's dynamic address makes him untrackable to a very large degree, apparently subject only to which address he's using during a visit to a site that only he visits?
If that's the case, I wonder why ISPs don't allow users to opt for dynamic addresses (at less cost to the ISPs), which, on the surface, appear to be more desirable for many (most?) users?
