On Wednesday 13 February 2002 23:03, you wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > I've never really untangled DNS for myself, but I'm working on
Okay, so here's my 5 cents...
My view is that dynamic IP addressing is really mostly useful when you have
random connections from random people. The time saved in setting up each box
stop making sense when you get a smaller network, I'd say 50 boxes.
By using a static IP for each client I can much easier keep track of who is
doing what. I can compare with previous activites and find abnormal
behaviour. I typically assign IP's broken down per dept. If traffic get's
heavy in a dept I can subnet it by simply introducing a router.
I normally design a network well enough that it does not need much change
which would cause me spending a lot of time reconfiguring clients manually.
But I do monitor usage and it's easy to pick up on who is heavier than others
after a short while.
DHCP really was an answer for ISP's with lot's of dialup customers, almost
always with more customers than IP's.
If I have people that come and go with laptops, I normally don't just let
them on our network either without some kind of approval process. But if that
was not the case one could always create a big enough pool of IP's for that
purpose.
Having a computer automatically do things for you is fun. But it too has it's
limits.
Same thing with DNS. It is a lot of fun to have a master / slave setup. You
change the master and the slaves are magically updated. Just like the idea
with primary and secondary domain controllers under window domains.
I like building LANs for experimenting. It can be really beautiful to watch
these things interact. You can learn a lot on it.
Well it sounds like I'm starting to ramble so I'll stop.
--Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:07:50 EDT