On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:39:51PM -0500, steve wrote:
> 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.
>
Well my interest in this is twofold. First, I don't know how to do it
and I should. Second, every time I add a host to my network, I have to
go around to every box and update the hosts file on each one, if I want
them all to be able to see each other. And I'm lazy. ;-} Of course, if
you don't want the machines to talk to each other, then you don't need
to go around and hack each machine.
> 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.
>
On networks I work with (much smaller than yours), I don't care about
traffic loads, because they'll never approach the capacity of the
network and router. And I have many more computers than I have users.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:08:40 EDT