Some good suggestions. The solutions are all quite simple, it basically a matter of getting everybody on the same page.
I'll run these ideas by the appropriate decision-makers and cross my fingers. Thanks again to everyone involved, Joey > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff Newmiller > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:03 AM > To: lugod's technical discussion forum > Subject: RE: [vox-tech] Another Round of eth0 Problemas - > Fixed, now how > t o prevent? > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Mark K. Kim wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Karalius, Joseph wrote: > > [snip] > > > So, if I may redirect the discussion, I'd like to hear > about how the network > > > admins on the list organize IP assignments. More > specifically, is it wise > > > to put static IPs shuffled within the DHCP licensed host > range and simply > > > blacklist the statics from the DHCP server? Why not put > the static IPs in a > > > different network, that way the address itself would tell > you the address > > > type (static vs. dynamic) and if partitioned out even > further, printers > > > could be in one host range on the network ,and servers > could be in another. > > > Is it common to just ping addresses to find an unused one > and then grab it? > > > Or is this a non-issue and only newbies and hacks are > affected by it? > > > > Wouldn't it be easier to move the DHCP to a new network > address than to > > move the static addresses, since all DHCP's IP addresses > can be moved from > > the server? Set the netmask on the new DHCP addresses to > include the > > static IP address range, and announce to everyone to set > any computers > > with static IP addresses to use the new mask. If anyone > comes to IT and > > complains about their computer not being able to access > certain others, > > then the IT has identified a rogue static IP address user, > and can switch > > them over to DHCP. > > I think the case in point contradicts your argument... Joey wasn't at > fault. > > > Really, though, nobody should be using static IP address. > If they need to > > act as a server, they can do a MAC-address based DHCP > resolution to always > > get the same IP address. To do that, they'd have to get > someone in the IT > > to make a list of NICs that want to have static addresses, > and they'd > > enter that into the DHCP server somewhere to always give > them the same IP > > address. This will centralize all IP assignment to the > DHCP server and > > remove all IP address conflict altogether (until someone > stupidly plugs in > > a computer and gives it a static IP.) > > I agree that in most cases this is true... but there are some > devices that > just don't work well with DHCP, so you have to assign them > statically. > (That doesn't preclude you from ALSO giving it the same address via a > MAC-assigned DHCP lease as a bookkeeping measure, but then > you probably > wouldn't remember that it was in fact statically assigned.) > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > Jeff Newmiller The ..... > ..... Go Live... > DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Basics: ##.#. > ##.#. Live Go... > Live: OO#.. Dead: > OO#.. Playing > Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with > /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. > .OO#. rocks...1k > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > > _______________________________________________ > vox-tech mailing list > vox-tech@lists.lugod.org > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech > _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list vox-tech@lists.lugod.org http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech