On Sunday 15 Jun 2003 8:25 pm, Technoslick wrote: > On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 22:24, L.V.Gandhi wrote: > > On Saturday 14 Jun 2003 12:16 pm, Ronald J. Hall wrote: > > > DId you logon to your router and adjust things there? I've got a Dlink > > > router and it let me assign the range of IP addresses to be used for my > > > 3 comp LAN. I'm using DHCP here and it works fine. > > > > What are the advantages of using dhcp for such small network of three > > computers. Kindly explain. I have fixed ips for my LAN of 5 PCs. > > Some advantages: > > 1) Great for anyone who periodically inserts temporary clients into > their network. (i.e.: service techs, fast-moving families with teenage > kids..) > > 2) Large networks where manually adding entries to all the > 'hosts'/'lmhosts' files would be a PITA, especially if clients are > transient and variable. > > 3) Once setup properly, it does make the process pretty mindless on the > admin's part. No fuss, no muss. > > 4) With a router/gateway DHCP server, simple to setup. K.I.S.S. > principal, at its best. > > > Some disadvantages: > > 1) Slight loss of control in assigning devices. Not all networked > devices appreciate or can accept DHCP assignment, causing you to > interject static addressing and 'hosts'/'lmhosts' usage into the > network, anyway. > > 2) Relying on the DHCP server (which can be a router/gateway device) to > manage not only the IP addresses, but in most cases DNS) can be > noticeably slower in resolving names. > > 3) DHCP sometimes gets 'stuck' and will cause IP conflicts. Depends on > the device providing DHCP as to whether this happens often or at all. > I've had problems both in software and hardware driven DHCP servers. > > 4) Your client is SOOL if the DHCP server goes down. No IP, no network. > With static assigning, as long as two devices work, you have a working > network. > > 5) Can be tricky to setup properly. Mistakes made do not always readily > show themselves, making troubleshooting a pain at times, especially if > other servers/services are relying upon its accuracy to achieve their > programming goals for the network. > > I could go on, probably, and others could add or argue for/against based > on their own experiences. For me, I like things to stay put. Static does > that. I prefer DHCP because I don't want to have to bother with it. > Right now, my network is setup for static because it seems to be fool- > proof and I don't have any more than a dozen clients/devices that need > to be IP addressed. Any temp systems added are manually addressed > outside the tight range of my permanent network. I don't have conflicts. > And when I need to step back and think about where everything is in my > setup...even my feeble mind can remember the IP address of anything on > the network. :0)
Thanks for the detailed reply. I have following machines. machine hostname IP OS machine 1 dgmcel566 192.168.16.3 Winme machine 1 dgmcellnx 192.168.16.31 MDK91 machine 2 pa 192.168.16.2 win98 machine 2 palnx 192.168.16.21 MDK91 machine 3 hclnewpc 192.168.16.50 win98 machine 3 hclpclnx 192.168.16.51 MDK91 machine 4 meconvpt 192.168.16.4 MDK91 machine 5 meconvpt 192.168.16.16 win98 machine 1 and 2 are having modems separately to connect to dialup a/c. Any machine can be off any time. Under this setup, after reading all the mails I feel static IPs are better. any comments? -- L.V.Gandhi 203, Soundaryalahari Apartments, Lawsons Bay colony, Visakhapatnam, 530017 MECON, 5th Floor, RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam AP 530020 INDIA
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
