At 4/9/2002 03:26 PM -0700, you wrote: >Maybe I'm dense, but could someone explain to me what problem this >solves? The assignments are dynamic, but the mapping between the IP >address and its A record -- which is what DNS does -- is static, and has >nothing to do with whether the address is currently in use.
The *hope* is that the following will happen: 1. My notebook is assigned 192.168.0.102 by DHCP. 2. The DHCP server notifies DNS that "notebook IN A 192.168.0.102". 3. "ping notebook" does the right thing. 4. I reboot, get assigned .103 by DHCP. 5. DNS (and its cache) is updated. 6. "ping notebook" again does the right thing. Today the only way for me to get this to work is to ensure that every possible machine for which I'd consistently want to use a name gets the same address every time, so I have to configure DNS manually *and* configure dhcpd to hand out static addresses to each machine by hand. Tedious as hell. >So I guess I don't see the point here, unless perhaps we're trying to >alias DHCP_HOSTNAME to an IP address on-the-fly, which sounds dicey, >since you'd be introducing potential namespace conflicts. The point is to always be able to find a computer by name, even if its IP address changes, since DNS gets updated. Namespace conflicts would be avoided because DNS *is* updated. All of this assumes that it works, of course. Does this make more sense now? I don't know if it works, but it's nirvana for small networks like my house. Simply make sure that the hostname for each computer is correct, and then I can make sure that dhcpd gets that hostname, updates DNS, and thus all machines are immediately available by name with practically plug-and-play simplicity. -- Rodolfo J. Paiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
