[vox-tech] Another Round of eth0 Problemas - Fixed, now how t o prevent?

[Karalius, Joseph]

Some good suggestions.  The solutions are all quite simple, it basically a
matter of getting everybody on the same page.

I'll run these ideas by the appropriate decision-makers and cross my
fingers.

Thanks again to everyone involved,

Joey


> -----Original Message-----
> From: vox-tech-bounces at lists.lugod.org
> [mailto:vox-tech-bounces at lists.lugod.org]On Behalf Of Jeff Newmiller
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:03 AM
> To: lugod's technical discussion forum
> Subject: RE: [vox-tech] Another Round of eth0 Problemas - 
> Fixed, now how
> t o prevent?
> 
> 
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Mark K. Kim wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Karalius, Joseph wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > So, if I may redirect the discussion, I'd like to hear 
> about how the network
> > > admins on the list organize IP assignments.  More 
> specifically, is it wise
> > > to put static IPs shuffled within the DHCP licensed host 
> range and simply
> > > blacklist the statics from the DHCP server?  Why not put 
> the static IPs in a
> > > different network, that way the address itself would tell 
> you the address
> > > type (static vs. dynamic) and if partitioned out even 
> further, printers
> > > could be in one host range on the network ,and servers 
> could be in another.
> > > Is it common to just ping addresses to find an unused one 
> and then grab it?
> > > Or is this a non-issue and only newbies and hacks are 
> affected by it?
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be easier to move the DHCP to a new network 
> address than to
> > move the static addresses, since all DHCP's IP addresses 
> can be moved from
> > the server?  Set the netmask on the new DHCP addresses to 
> include the
> > static IP address range, and announce to everyone to set 
> any computers
> > with static IP addresses to use the new mask.  If anyone 
> comes to IT and
> > complains about their computer not being able to access 
> certain others,
> > then the IT has identified a rogue static IP address user, 
> and can switch
> > them over to DHCP.
> 
> I think the case in point contradicts your argument... Joey wasn't at
> fault.
> 
> > Really, though, nobody should be using static IP address.  
> If they need to
> > act as a server, they can do a MAC-address based DHCP 
> resolution to always
> > get the same IP address.  To do that, they'd have to get 
> someone in the IT
> > to make a list of NICs that want to have static addresses, 
> and they'd
> > enter that into the DHCP server somewhere to always give 
> them the same IP
> > address.  This will centralize all IP assignment to the 
> DHCP server and
> > remove all IP address conflict altogether (until someone 
> stupidly plugs in
> > a computer and gives it a static IP.)
> 
> I agree that in most cases this is true... but there are some 
> devices that
> just don't work well with DHCP, so you have to assign them 
> statically.  
> (That doesn't preclude you from ALSO giving it the same address via a
> MAC-assigned DHCP lease as a bookkeeping measure, but then 
> you probably
> wouldn't remember that it was in fact statically assigned.)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> Jeff Newmiller                        The     .....       
> .....  Go Live...
> DCN:<jdnewmil at dcn.davis.ca.us>        Basics: ##.#.       
> ##.#.  Live Go...
>                                       Live:   OO#.. Dead: 
> OO#..  Playing
> Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries            O.O#.       #.O#.  with
> /Software/Embedded Controllers)               .OO#.       
> .OO#.  rocks...1k
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vox-tech mailing list
> vox-tech at lists.lugod.org
> http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
>