At 4/9/2002 07:00 PM -0700, David Talkington wrote: >Nobody's arguing that DHCP should >be banished -- just that it's counterproductive to use it for _resource >servers_, which need to be reachable at the same address consistently, >both for convenience and security. DHCP is for _clients_.
Ah, here we come to the meat of our earlier discussion. I believe, David, that we've pretty much been misunderstanding each other. I entirely agree that DHCP is for _clients_ and in fact this is how I configure everything. All servers are static, and ideally all clients are DHCP. But sometimes clients are "casual" resource servers in that they will share a Zip drive or such for others to use in the office, so it would be wonderful to have those clients be accessible by name for the convenience of said users. This applies to the Quake games mentioned earlier and to most other examples. I would *not* allow dynamic DNS updates to a zone which includes resource servers or critical services; I'd use a subdomain for the DHCP-served clients and make sure *only* that zone is updated. No host-based auth as well, which is inherently insecure; no NFS; and extremely limited SSH access using keys and passwords, but only to servers on static IP's. -- Rodolfo J. Paiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
