DHCP Question

Discussion in 'Networking & Security' started by drgh0st, Jan 19, 2005.

  1. drgh0st

    drgh0st Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    310
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Supposely it's better to assign static ip to a client rather than do it automatically. Any reason why?
     
  2. DoMeHardR

    DoMeHardR Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    227
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2002
    For "clients" not really. DHCP is a lot easier to do an maintain. You really only need to staticllyllylylylyy (can't spell) assign an IP usuallly in if its hosting something or providing some service to the network and is connected to by that known IP address.
     
  3. scottatwittenberg

    scottatwittenberg 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,306
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    i would only give something a static ip if it was say a network printer or a server.. otherwise let it be dynamic.. that way you don't get conflicts and you don't have to think.. "what ip should i make this computer"...
     
  4. drgh0st

    drgh0st Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    310
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    someone told me it's less likely to crash if it's static, I'm not sure if that's true or not cause he was trying to dumb down netowrking so my sister can understand it.
     
  5. jpmkm

    jpmkm That Ain't Mayo On My Lip...

    Messages:
    5,773
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    That doesn't make any sense. I can't figure out what exactly would crash more often if a client had dhcp information rather than static information. The only time I would assign a static ip address is if it needed to be known by other clients and I wanted it to be the same all the time. It doesn't really make a difference on the client side how it got its ip address or what it is.
     
  6. IceWindus

    IceWindus n00b

    Messages:
    10
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    It is nice to have static IP's to figure out if a machine is blasting spyware or viruses on the network or is hogging bandwith and your able to pinpoint it at your leisure rather then having to beat the lease release time limit. You also want static if your sharing files, folders, printers ect..ect..otherwise when the lease is up and changes, no one will be able to find the shares.
     
  7. jpmkm

    jpmkm That Ain't Mayo On My Lip...

    Messages:
    5,773
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Only if you connect via ip addresses. Use hostnames and you won't have any problems with different ip addresses.
     
  8. O[H]-Zone

    O[H]-Zone [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,465
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Assuming you're running a DNS server too.
     
  9. lomn75

    lomn75 Purple Ace

    Messages:
    6,613
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    I'd say it's easier to use reserved DHCP than static for home networking (and in other places, too). That way your clients still pull down gateways, DNS, and such without your intervention, but still get the same IP every time.

    However, for client connections, straight DHCP is the way to go. Static is just a PITA unless you've got a reason for it.

    //edit: O[H]-Zone: or if you're on a Windows LAN, since it will track hostnames for you. No DNS needed.
     
  10. jpmkm

    jpmkm That Ain't Mayo On My Lip...

    Messages:
    5,773
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Not necessarily. I am able to access samba shares and windows file shares by hostname and I am not running a dns server.
     
  11. ktwebb

    ktwebb [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,046
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Host name with DNS, hosts file or whatever or NetBIOS name with WIN's or broadcasts. Other name resolution engines as well. Icewind's comments, while I am sure well intended, were a bit misleading. Some form of name resolution will be in place, even if it's MS browser elections or broadcasting.