DCHP versus fixed IP addresses
Can anyone offer an opinion on the pros and cons of using DHCP versus fixed IP addresses to set up the IP addresses for my small local network? Or point me to a document on the subject? Paul Abrahams
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 11:08, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Can anyone offer an opinion on the pros and cons of using DHCP versus fixed IP addresses to set up the IP addresses for my small local network? Or point me to a document on the subject?
Paul Abrahams
For a small local lan fixed is probably better, no server to maintain (configure). In my situation we have over 50 offices/600 users throughout the U.S. so dhcp works better for us. -- Ken Schneider unix user since 1989 linux user since 1994 SuSE user since 1998 (5.2)
On Friday 13 February 2004 1:01 pm, Kenneth Schneider wrote:
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 11:08, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Can anyone offer an opinion on the pros and cons of using DHCP versus fixed IP addresses to set up the IP addresses for my small local network?
For a small local lan fixed is probably better, no server to maintain (configure).
In my situation we have over 50 offices/600 users throughout the U.S. so dhcp works better for us.
Perhaps I should have explained my situation in a little more detail. I have a small home network using fixed IP addresses, and it's worked quite well for me. But I've been considering attaching a thin client, which I think might need DHCP. So the only reason to switch would be to make the thin client happy. I suppose, ideally, I'd keep the fixed addresses for my existing machines and put the thin client on DHCP, but my impression is that the addressing has to be either all fixed or all DHCP. Paul Abrahams
On Friday 13 February 2004 20:54 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
On Friday 13 February 2004 1:01 pm, Kenneth Schneider wrote:
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 11:08, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Can anyone offer an opinion on the pros and cons of using DHCP versus
fixed IP
addresses to set up the IP addresses for my small local network?
For a small local lan fixed is probably better, no server to maintain (configure).
In my situation we have over 50 offices/600 users throughout the U.S. so dhcp works better for us.
Perhaps I should have explained my situation in a little more detail. I have a small home network using fixed IP addresses, and it's worked quite well for me. But I've been considering attaching a thin client, which I think might need DHCP. So the only reason to switch would be to make the thin client happy. I suppose, ideally, I'd keep the fixed addresses for my existing machines and put the thin client on DHCP, but my impression is that the addressing has to be either all fixed or all DHCP.
Not at all - you can configure the DHCP server to always serve the same IP address to a particular machine. If you ony have one machine on DHCP then you could probably get away with giving the server an address pool of 1 address, otherwise you can have it match the IP to the MAC address. There's no reason why this can't be mixed with a fixed IP network so long as the DHCP server's address pool doesn't overlap with the static IPs and the netmask and routing info are consistent. Dylan -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
On Friday 13 February 2004 9:12 pm, Dylan wrote:
Not at all - you can configure the DHCP server to always serve the same IP address to a particular machine. If you ony have one machine on DHCP then you could probably get away with giving the server an address pool of 1 address, otherwise you can have it match the IP to the MAC address. There's no reason why this can't be mixed with a fixed IP network so long as the DHCP server's address pool doesn't overlap with the static IPs and the netmask and routing info are consistent.
I use fixed IP, and this is roughly file:/etc/sysconfig/network/ifcfg-eth0 on 1 of my boxes: BOOTPROTO='static' MTU='' REMOTE_IPADDR='' STARTMODE='onboot' BROADCAST='~.~.4.255' IPADDR='~.~.4.17' NETMASK='255.255.255.0' NETWORK='~.~.4.0' BROADCAST0='~.~.5.255' IPADDR0='~.~.5.17' NETMASK0='255.255.255.0' NETWORK0='~.~.5.0' #IPADDR1='192.168.2.17' #NETMASK1='255.255.255.0' Doing this gives me 2 simultaneous subnets, ~.~.4.0 and ~.~.5.0 . Why? Any box which is booted to Windows is on ~.~.4.0 subnet and my router is on ~.~.5.0 . Hence, when booted to Linux, a box can access the internet and can see and be seen by boxes booted to Windows. But Windows boxes cannot see or be seen by the internet. [And I can uncomment the last 2 lines, plug in my router after a factory reset, do <rcnetwork restart> and configure my router on its factory address, not relevant to this discussion] So, I wonder, could you actually configure a single interface in the manner shown above, but with 1 fixed IP subnet and 1 DHCP subnet? Vince
On Friday 13 February 2004 21:51 pm, Vince Littler wrote: <SNIP>
So, I wonder, could you actually configure a single interface in the manner shown above, but with 1 fixed IP subnet and 1 DHCP subnet?
Not sure, try it... I'd set it up so the basic sections were DHCP and your BROADCAST0='~.~.5.255' IPADDR0='~.~.5.17' NETMASK0='255.255.255.0' NETWORK0='~.~.5.0' #IPADDR1='192.168.2.17' #NETMASK1='255.255.255.0' section remained the same, then just see what happens... Dylan -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
On Friday 13 February 2004 14:54, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
On Friday 13 February 2004 1:01 pm, Kenneth Schneider wrote:
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 11:08, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Can anyone offer an opinion on the pros and cons of using DHCP versus
fixed IP
addresses to set up the IP addresses for my small local network?
For a small local lan fixed is probably better, no server to maintain (configure).
In my situation we have over 50 offices/600 users throughout the U.S. so dhcp works better for us.
Perhaps I should have explained my situation in a little more detail. I have a small home network using fixed IP addresses, and it's worked quite well for me. But I've been considering attaching a thin client, which I think might need DHCP. So the only reason to switch would be to make the thin client happy. I suppose, ideally, I'd keep the fixed addresses for my existing machines and put the thin client on DHCP, but my impression is that the addressing has to be either all fixed or all DHCP.
Paul Abrahams
Doesn't matter fixed vs DHCP IP addresses. Can be both, can be one or the other. Thing to keep straight is keeping your fixed IPs out of your DHCP range. Have a range of say 192.168.1.10-20 (laptops, PDAs, cell phones, pigeons) for DHCP. Then assign fixed IPs above or below; 192.168.1.1-9 (routers, firewalls, network gear) and 192.168.1.21-254 (servers, desktops, refrigerators, toilets, etc). DHCP is good for laptops for example, where they may also be getting on other LANs with different IP ranges. One less thing to configure before being productive. Stan
I have dhcp setup within certain range and others are fixed. works fine henry On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
On Friday 13 February 2004 1:01 pm, Kenneth Schneider wrote:
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 11:08, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Can anyone offer an opinion on the pros and cons of using DHCP versus fixed IP addresses to set up the IP addresses for my small local network?
For a small local lan fixed is probably better, no server to maintain (configure).
In my situation we have over 50 offices/600 users throughout the U.S. so dhcp works better for us.
Perhaps I should have explained my situation in a little more detail. I have a small home network using fixed IP addresses, and it's worked quite well for me. But I've been considering attaching a thin client, which I think might need DHCP. So the only reason to switch would be to make the thin client happy. I suppose, ideally, I'd keep the fixed addresses for my existing machines and put the thin client on DHCP, but my impression is that the addressing has to be either all fixed or all DHCP.
Paul Abrahams
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Perhaps I should have explained my situation in a little more detail. I have a small home network using fixed IP addresses, and it's worked quite well for me. But I've been considering attaching a thin client, which I think might need DHCP. So the only reason to switch would be to make the thin client happy. I suppose, ideally, I'd keep the fixed addresses for my existing machines and put the thin client on DHCP, but my impression is that the addressing has to be either all fixed or all DHCP.
Paul Abrahams
Not true. At work we have over 600 computers on out LAN/WAN and a lot of the computers at corp are on fixed addresses with the rest on DHCP. Most but not all of the remote office PC's are using DHCP but we also have some on fixed addresses. DHCP can be setup to only supply a certain block of addresses that are outside of the fixed addresses. As far as the thin client goes it would actually (I think) use BOOTP for it's address which would be setup on the terminal server. Ken
Perhaps I should have explained my situation in a little more detail.
I have a small home network using fixed IP addresses, and it's worked quite well for me. But I've been considering attaching a thin client, which I think might need DHCP. So the only reason to switch would be to make the thin client happy. I suppose, ideally, I'd keep the fixed addresses for my existing machines and put the thin client on DHCP, but my impression is that the addressing has to be either all fixed or all DHCP.
Paul Abrahams
Not true. At work we have over 600 computers on out LAN/WAN and a lot of the computers at corp are on fixed addresses with the rest on DHCP. Most but not all of the remote office PC's are using DHCP but we also have some on fixed addresses. DHCP can be setup to only supply a certain block of addresses that are outside of the fixed addresses.
As far as the thin client goes it would actually (I think) use BOOTP for it's address which would be setup on the terminal server.
Ken
It depends on the thin client. Most of them are using embedded Linux, and IP can be dynamic or static which can be set on the thin client itself. Therefore it can be used in a mixed environment (DHCP and static) as Ken suggested above. Rudolf
"Paul W. Abrahams"
Can anyone offer an opinion on the pros and cons of using DHCP versus fixed IP addresses to set up the IP addresses for my small local network?
IMHO a combination of both may be the best solution. Machines with static IP addresses don't have problems when the DHCP server is down and, on the other hand, new devices (e.g. visitor's notebooks) can get temporary IP addresses easily when the DHCP server is used. -- A.M.
participants (9)
-
Alexandr Malusek -
Dylan -
Henry Tang -
Ken Schneider -
Kenneth Schneider
-
Paul W. Abrahams -
Rudolf Schnetler -
S.R.Glasoe -
Vince Littler