On Sep 7, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Patrick Cable wrote: > Others are of the mindset that server IPs change so infrequently that > it is not worth putting in DHCP and risky to do so. What's the benefit > if the addresses never change?
Even if the servers are manually configured and don't actually use DHCP to obtain their IP address, it is still useful to record all their information in the DHCP system -- that helps you record all the information regarding all the IP addresses and machines that are in use, and avoid the potential of handing out the same address to more than one machine. > I am looking at a network renumber in my future, so I was going to > deploy this with the renumber. That also works. > How do you feel about DHCP used to configure server addresses? So long as the DHCP server infrastructure can be expected to be 100% reliable, or at least no less reliable than the routers & switches on your network and the DNS servers configured for use by the servers, then I don't see what the problem is. You're already dependent on these other things like DNS servers, routers, switches, etc... so it's not like your non-DHCP server is guaranteed 100% uptime just because it doesn't depend on the DHCP system. If your DNS servers go south, then anything that depends on them will go south -- including all the other servers on your network. If your routers and/or switches go south, so does everything else. At least DHCP has the advantage that the protocol is typically on used at boot time, and once you have successfully booted, you don't need to talk to it again. -- Brad Knowles <b...@shub-internet.org> LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
