Advantage of Static IP Address

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

Our company has over 500 PCs. Currently, somebody proposes
to change dynamic IP address scheme to static, is there
any impact in terms of:

1. Future administration and management works?
2. Pros and Cons?
3. Do you agree with this change?

Best regards,
Albert Lo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

In news:044601c46e14$2100d340$a301280a@phx.gbl,
Albert Lo <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> posted a question
Then Kevin replied below:
> Our company has over 500 PCs. Currently, somebody proposes
> to change dynamic IP address scheme to static, is there
> any impact in terms of:
>
> 1. Future administration and management works?
> 2. Pros and Cons?
> 3. Do you agree with this change?

500 PCs are a lot of PCs to have to manually configure and keep track of
which has what IP and keep from getting IP conflicts. What happens if you
have a machine die on you a year or so down the line and nobody can remember
the IP it had or where the list is, if the list even exists.
DHCP does a lot better job for less administration time, you'll need a few
static IPs for servers and you can exclude those in the scope.



--
Best regards,
Kevin D4 Dad Goodknecht Sr. [MVP]
Hope This Helps
============================
--
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your
newsreader so that others may learn and benefit from your
issue. To respond directly to me remove the nospam. from my
email. ==========================================
http://www.lonestaramerica.com/
==========================================
Use Outlook Express?... Get OE_Quotefix:
It will strip signature out and more
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
==========================================
Keep a back up of your OE settings and folders with
OEBackup:
http://www.oehelp.com/OEBackup/Default.aspx
==========================================

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

DHCP makes a lot of sense in your situation. Check if any machines need to
listen to the Internet, and give them static IPs for purposes of forwarding
ports from your firewall. The rest will be quite happy with dynamic IPs.

"Albert Lo" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:044601c46e14$2100d340$a301280a@phx.gbl...
> Our company has over 500 PCs. Currently, somebody proposes
> to change dynamic IP address scheme to static, is there
> any impact in terms of:
>
> 1. Future administration and management works?
> 2. Pros and Cons?
> 3. Do you agree with this change?
>
> Best regards,
> Albert Lo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

In article <044601c46e14$2100d340$a301280a@phx.gbl>,
anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com says...
>
>Our company has over 500 PCs. Currently, somebody proposes
>to change dynamic IP address scheme to static, is there
>any impact in terms of:
>
>1. Future administration and management works?
>2. Pros and Cons?
>3. Do you agree with this change?
>
>Best regards,
>Albert Lo
*************** REPLY SEPARATER ****************
1. Fixed IP addresses are more reliable than DHCP served.
2. You always know where to find a troublesome machine.
3. Dynamic addressing makes sense for machines that potentially connect to
different networks (ie. notebook computers).
4. Fixed addressing allows you to open up your firewall for specific tasks to
specific machines

500 PCs is a lot of IP space to manage, but if it can be broken up into work
groups it is workable. Some DHCP servers allow you to assign specific IP
addresses to specific MAC addresses. I generally avoid DHCP servers where
possible, and where not possible I use both (ie. fixed addresses for fixed
machines & dynamic addresses for portable machines).

J.A. Coutts
Systems Engineer
MantaNet/TravPro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

Honestly, I use DHCP even on tiny five-computer networks because I'm really
lazy and don't like touching every machine when I make any change
whatsoever. I would use statics only for servers, printers, network devices
(firewalls/routers/switches etc).

More importantly in your situation - what is the business/technical
justification for doing this?

Albert Lo wrote:
> Our company has over 500 PCs. Currently, somebody proposes
> to change dynamic IP address scheme to static, is there
> any impact in terms of:
>
> 1. Future administration and management works?
> 2. Pros and Cons?
> 3. Do you agree with this change?
>
> Best regards,
> Albert Lo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

In news:044601c46e14$2100d340$a301280a@phx.gbl,
Albert Lo <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> asked for help and I offered
my suggestions below:
> Our company has over 500 PCs. Currently, somebody proposes
> to change dynamic IP address scheme to static, is there
> any impact in terms of:
>
> 1. Future administration and management works?
> 2. Pros and Cons?
> 3. Do you agree with this change?
>
> Best regards,
> Albert Lo

Just to add to the chorus, if security is a concern, there is no security
advantages to going to static. If anyone wanted to know what subnet you are
on, all they have to do is sniff it.

As was mentioned, 500 is a large number to manually manage. If you have a
config change, it can be scripted, but more of a PITA.

Personally, I don't agree.

Curious, what's the basis on the decision to change it?

--
Regards,
Ace

Please direct all replies ONLY to the Microsoft public newsgroups
so all can benefit.

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees
and confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
Microsoft Windows MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services

Security Is Like An Onion, It Has Layers
HAM AND EGGS: A day's work for a chicken;
A lifetime commitment for a pig.
--
=================================