Re: Broadcast Address as Gateway
From: Moe Trin (ibuprofin_at_painkiller.example.tld)
Date: 06/22/05
- Next message: Bill Davidsen: "Re: CPU load due to IP networking"
- Previous message: David Schwartz: "Re: CLOSE_WAIT vs. EOF"
- In reply to: James Knott: "Re: Broadcast Address as Gateway"
- Next in thread: James Knott: "Re: Broadcast Address as Gateway"
- Reply: James Knott: "Re: Broadcast Address as Gateway"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:02:19 -0500
In the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article
<f96dnf24MP8I5yrfRVn-3w@rogers.com>, James Knott wrote:
>Gee... That's the first time I've heard that one. Everything I've read on
>the subject indicates that the purpose of DHCP was to simplify
>configuration of the computer. Just plug it in and go, instead of keeping
>track of and setting the IP address manually for each computer.
It's in the original RFC1531 document. I can't find my notes, but
the original concept came from a university (in Pennsylvania? not sure)
that expected it to be a major problem for them.
>Manual configuration is easy, if you've got only a few computers. You
>don't want to do that, if you're working in a building with over four
>thousand employees, most of whom have computers, as I have.
What operating system? I've got 1800 *nix boxes here, all with manual
configurations. It adds about a half minute to the setup of each host,
but as these are usually only set up once - it's not a problem. On the
rare occasion when we have a computer move from one subnet to another,
the PFY who physically moves the system can do that. The old and new
addresses and/or hostname is on the work order. Or someone from the hell
desk can log in over the net and change the appropriate config files
remotely so it will come up with the right address when it restarts after
the move.
If you have computers wandering in and out, DHCP might be a reasonable
solution, but we don't allow that. Likewise, if your users have super
user or admin privileges on the boxes, it could be a problem, but I'd
suspect there are bigger problems you have to solve in that case.
>Also, in many situations, the DHCP lease times are long enough, that they're
>virtually permanent. For example, with my ISP, the lease is 7 days. This
>means that I "own" my address, unless I turn my firewall off for more than
>the time. So in this instance, DHCP is not used to conserve addresses.
No, DHCP is the only solution for consumer situations like ISPs where the
customer is already outside their envelope just trying to figure out how
to plug in the power cord, never mind connecting something as complex as
an Ethernet cable. But the O/P wasn't talking about that situation. His
situation is a network where no one can spell IP, let alone understand how
to set it up. They were going to have the routers configured by DHCP,
something that the RFC specifically recommends NOT doing. In that case,
they'd be better to turn the router into a transparent bridge, and use
RFC3927 to set up networking. That's why microsoft pushed for seven years
to get that mechanism adopted.
Old guy
- Next message: Bill Davidsen: "Re: CPU load due to IP networking"
- Previous message: David Schwartz: "Re: CLOSE_WAIT vs. EOF"
- In reply to: James Knott: "Re: Broadcast Address as Gateway"
- Next in thread: James Knott: "Re: Broadcast Address as Gateway"
- Reply: James Knott: "Re: Broadcast Address as Gateway"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
