On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 01:11:21PM +0100, Olaf Titz wrote:
> > > If you do anything else than Windows-based pure client apps you
> > > very quickly need static addresses.
> >
> > Why? I really don't see any goog arguement for this whatsoever.
>
> Because another machine might access your machine actively in some
> way. This depends on knowing what your machine is.
>
> The Windows network solves this problem by running a purely dynamic
> naming service, so it might get along better if no other services are
> involved. This works by everything self-registering, while Un*x
> relies on an external naming service.
>
...
>
> The client might work fine, but what about the server side? Dynamic
> addressing in an environment where Un*x is involved heavily depends on
> the DNS getting it right. This means the DNS server has to integrate
> in some way with the DHCP server so that they give out the same
> adresses for one name every time, or all hell breaks loose.
>
Sorry, non-kernel-related, but kernel related things are (occasionally)
being discussed on this thread.
Just to clear up some confusion: Linux works fine with DNS updates from
DHCP (using dynamic updates to bind). Our whole network works this way.
Giving out DHCP leases with month durations makes a network pretty
indistinguishable from a static IP one.
On Debian Potato:
# apt-get install dhcp dhcp-dns
The days in which you had to have a static IP if someone wanted to ssh
to your machine are over.
miket
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:15 EST