ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    DHCP the servers

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IT Discussion
    14 Posts 6 Posters 1.9k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • T
      Texkonc @JaredBusch
      last edited by Texkonc

      @JaredBusch said in DHCP the servers:

      Personally, I am in the camp of static the hypervisors, DC, routers, and switches.

      Yes, I agree on all those.
      I am just used to statically assigning everything. This way we can set blocks of IP's aside for an application lets say, that you make block of .100-.150 for that one application and nothing can touch that range. but if you DHCP everything you kinda loose that.

      scottalanmillerS T 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller
        last edited by

        dhcp all the things

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
        • scottalanmillerS
          scottalanmiller @Texkonc
          last edited by

          @Texkonc said in DHCP the servers:

          @JaredBusch said in DHCP the servers:

          Personally, I am in the camp of static the hypervisors, DC, routers, and switches.

          Yes, I agree on all those.
          I am just used to statically assigning everything. This way we can set blocks of IP's aside for an application lets say, that you make block of .100-.150 for that one application and nothing can touch that range. but if you DHCP everything you kinda loose that.

          What's the benefit of ranges of that nature? And reservations allow for that as well, you can set aside reservation blocks. But why?

          J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • T
            Texkonc @Texkonc
            last edited by

            @Texkonc said in DHCP the servers:

            @JaredBusch said in DHCP the servers:

            Personally, I am in the camp of static the hypervisors, DC, routers, and switches.

            Yes, I agree on all those.
            I am just used to statically assigning everything. This way we can set blocks of IP's aside for an application lets say, that you make block of .100-.150 for that one application and nothing can touch that range. but if you DHCP everything you kinda loose that.

            Short of blocking that range, then static those.

            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • scottalanmillerS
              scottalanmiller @Texkonc
              last edited by

              @Texkonc said in DHCP the servers:

              @Texkonc said in DHCP the servers:

              @JaredBusch said in DHCP the servers:

              Personally, I am in the camp of static the hypervisors, DC, routers, and switches.

              Yes, I agree on all those.
              I am just used to statically assigning everything. This way we can set blocks of IP's aside for an application lets say, that you make block of .100-.150 for that one application and nothing can touch that range. but if you DHCP everything you kinda loose that.

              Short of blocking that range, then static those.

              What do you mean? How is DHCP Reservations different than static assignment to an unused range? In both cases it just "isn't used yet."

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • coliverC
                coliver
                last edited by

                DHCP allows for easier management of dns, ntp, and a few other protocols. So if they change then you don't need to update them on every server... How often you do that? Probably almost never.

                vhinzsanchezV 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • T
                  Texkonc
                  last edited by

                  The wheels are turning to agree that it is a better practice, but slowly.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • vhinzsanchezV
                    vhinzsanchez @coliver
                    last edited by

                    @coliver said in DHCP the servers:

                    DHCP allows for easier management of dns, ntp, and a few other protocols. So if they change then you don't need to update them on every server... How often you do that? Probably almost never.

                    I did it once - manual update on every server and network devices. Not so hard if you only have a handful, just inventory all the servers and network devices and properly think out the steps. Upgraded from /23 to /22.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • J
                      Jason Banned @scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      @scottalanmiller said in DHCP the servers:

                      @Texkonc said in DHCP the servers:

                      @JaredBusch said in DHCP the servers:

                      Personally, I am in the camp of static the hypervisors, DC, routers, and switches.

                      Yes, I agree on all those.
                      I am just used to statically assigning everything. This way we can set blocks of IP's aside for an application lets say, that you make block of .100-.150 for that one application and nothing can touch that range. but if you DHCP everything you kinda loose that.

                      What's the benefit of ranges of that nature? And reservations allow for that as well, you can set aside reservation blocks. But why?

                      What's the point of putting things besides each other with IPs? We do that for switches on the management vlan but most services are by DNS anyway so it doesn't matter

                      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @Jason
                        last edited by

                        @Jason said in DHCP the servers:

                        @scottalanmiller said in DHCP the servers:

                        @Texkonc said in DHCP the servers:

                        @JaredBusch said in DHCP the servers:

                        Personally, I am in the camp of static the hypervisors, DC, routers, and switches.

                        Yes, I agree on all those.
                        I am just used to statically assigning everything. This way we can set blocks of IP's aside for an application lets say, that you make block of .100-.150 for that one application and nothing can touch that range. but if you DHCP everything you kinda loose that.

                        What's the benefit of ranges of that nature? And reservations allow for that as well, you can set aside reservation blocks. But why?

                        What's the point of putting things besides each other with IPs? We do that for switches on the management vlan but most services are by DNS anyway so it doesn't matter

                        That's something that I've always said. Any attempt to have an IP address "range" identify things on the network is a mistake, a misunderstanding of the purpose of IP addresses. They are nothing but numbers and humans should not try to make them meaningful, they are inherently not meaningful. The only reasonable exception is the gateway.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • 1 / 1
                        • First post
                          Last post