[isalist] Re: OT: DHCP and static addresses
- From: Jim Harrison <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:08:53 -0800
I prefer static for servers & devices (print servers, etc.); DHCP for all else..
If you ever replace a server NIC and you forget to change the MAC in the DHCP
reservation, your server could be unavailable until you either re-register the
IP or fix the reservation.
It's just a question of "how solid is your process control?"
Jim
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Amy Babinchak
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:49 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: OT: DHCP and static addresses
I always use the DHCP method. I don't know that there is a better. I think it's
simply a choice.
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Nathan
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:34 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] OT: DHCP and static addresses
To you network guys out there...
When you give a device a static address, be it a server, switch, printer etc.,
do you think it is better to hardcode the address into the device or allocate
the address using DHCP and the MAC address.
Thanks
Nathan
ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check
Authenticity<http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=m0ADnXb6014228&from=amy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Other related posts:
