Baslinux mailing list

[qwms-avib AT dea.spamcon.org]

James Miller wrote:
> 
> dhcp is most useful for large networks 

True.

> where assigning and keeping track of addresses and the 
> machines they're associated with could be a real nightmare, 

Certainly, if there is a lot of swapping and changing,
then keeping track of addresses could be messy.  However,
if things are reasonably stable, it shouldn't be too bad.
Just assign an address from the master list when the machine
is hooked up to the network and release that address when the
machine is de-commissioned.  For very large networks, blocks
of addresses can be pre-assign to departments and allocated/
deallocated by them.

One advantage of DHCP is that someone can bring in his own 
laptop, hook it up (temporarily) to the network and get an
address automatically.  However, considering the number of
viruses and worms that enter networks this way, it might
not be such an advantage.

> But I guess that, even for small networks it could ease 
> things a bit.  

I don't think so.  Installing and configuring a DHCP server
takes some effort, and it adds a potential point of failure.
It's simpler and cleaner just to assign a permanent address 
to each machine and be done with it.

> I should just ask for other peoples' input on dhcp vs 
> static addressing for small (home?) netwroks 

For the home network, I would always use static.  However,
DHCP is more and more common (probably to make it easier
for dummies).  Personally, I would rather do the nuts & bolts
myself, rather than depending on some daemon.

> Can dhcp and static addressing be employed on one and 
> the same home network, or are these methods of
> network addressing more or less mutually exclusive?

I suppose it would be possible to segregate a block of
addresses from the DHCP server, and assign those manually.
But, I don't see the point.  If you've got the DHCP server 
controlling most of the network, you might as well give it 
the lot.

Cheers,
Steven