Re: dhcp or static ip
From: Matt Wagner [MSFT] (mattwag_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 11/15/04
- Next message: Matt Wagner [MSFT]: "Re: okay, this is silly, but does Win2K have an alarm clock function ??"
- Previous message: branigan: "Raritan and cntrl-alt delete"
- In reply to: Graham: "dhcp or static ip"
- Next in thread: Enkidu: "Re: dhcp or static ip"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:03:39 -0800
Graham:
If you use DHCP you won't need to worry about managing your IP's - such
as who has which IP, and which IPs are not already used. You can avoid
any trouble with duplicate IPs when setting up new machines, or
reconfiguring old ones. Also, DHCP makes it easier if you ever need to
change your DNS, WINS, or Gateway IPs.
From a management and scalability perspective, DHCP seems like it would
help you out. However, if you don't feel comfortable changing your
system, the network is small enough that you could get away without it.
-- Matt Wagner Enterprise Engineering Center Microsoft Corporation Legal Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias is for newsgroup purposes only. Graham wrote: > I took over a small windows 2000 network. Have 1 server and 9 clients with > static ip's. Salesman wants me to switch over to dhcp server but i see no > advantage on this small of network. can anyone tell me the pros and cons of > changing.
- Next message: Matt Wagner [MSFT]: "Re: okay, this is silly, but does Win2K have an alarm clock function ??"
- Previous message: branigan: "Raritan and cntrl-alt delete"
- In reply to: Graham: "dhcp or static ip"
- Next in thread: Enkidu: "Re: dhcp or static ip"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]