[WinMac] Re: fixed IP numbers in a DHCP range

Dan Schwartz(expresso[at]snip.net)
Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:24:03 -0500

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Next message: Dan Schwartz: "[WinMac] Re: Quack"
Previous message: Carl Ketterling: "Re: [WinMac] Double-byte again! <don't you just love this topic ;-) >"
Maybe in reply to: thomas kase: "[WinMac] Double-byte again! <don't you just love this topic ;-) >"

Hello!

The reason I recommended not "nailing" an IP address in a DHCP environment
is that some of the readers of this list don't know how to reserve an IP
address... After all, NT's DHCP server isn't too hot in this respect.

Michael is lucky because he has access to people who know how to set up
DHCP properly -- In his case, with Linux.

Cheers!
Dan

At 11:21 PM 1/29/99 +0800, Michael Eilon wrote:
>At 8:32 PM -0500 28/1/99, Alex Dearden wrote:
>>> It's bad practice to "nail" an IP address in a DHCP environment,
>>>because
>>>if you take the device offline and the address lease expires, and then you
>>>bring the device back online you'll have two devices with the same IP
>>>address... And all hell breaks loose.
>>
>>So, increase the time of the lease. If NT needs an IP address and there
>>is a reserved address but the device is offline. It'll use that address.
>
>Forgive me if I'm being dense, but why not simply have the DHCP server
>reserve IP numbers based on the ethernet address of the device?
>
>Not that I'm an expert on DHCP, but my colleague who's in charge of the
>Departmental Server (Debian Linux) has DHCP set up in this way: we have a
>number of printers (and really old Macs) that can't handle DHCP, so I get
>him the ethernet addresses, and he allocates a fixed IP number for them.
>
>Haven't had any problems with this setup, even if there's downtime for the
>those devices... as far as I can make out, the DHCP server doesn't allocate
>the "reserved" IP number until the device with the appropriate ethernet
>number comes back online.
>
>Maybe I'm missing something, and there are reasons why our setup is not
>good in certain situations, but it seems like a painless way to have static
>IP numbers in a DHCP environment.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Michael Eilon
>Assistant computer manager
>Dept. of Physics
>University of Western Australia

-----------------------------------------------------------------

        <mailto:expresso@snip.net, Dan@Hemnet.com>

        ALTERNATE: <mailto:expresso@workmail.com>

Webmaster for <http://www.faulknerstudios.com>

**Your Corel Solution Partner**

**Your UltraBac Solution Source**

-----------------------------------------------------------------

* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
* FAQ: <http://www.darryl.com/winmacfaq/> *
* Archives: <http://www.darryl.com/winmac/> *
* Subscribe: <mailto:winmac-on@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu> *
* Subscribe Digest: <mailto:winmac-digest@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu> *
* Unsubscribe: <mailto:winmac-off@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu> *

Next message: Dan Schwartz: "[WinMac] Re: Quack"
Previous message: Carl Ketterling: "Re: [WinMac] Double-byte again! <don't you just love this topic ;-) >"
Maybe in reply to: thomas kase: "[WinMac] Double-byte again! <don't you just love this topic ;-) >"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sat Jan 30 1999 - 18:30:20 PST