[mythtv-users] Re: Why only numeric IP addresses work?
mythtv at ultratux.org
Wed Oct 13 21:45:15 UTC 2004
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 22:27, Scott Mazur wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:57:50 -0700, Jarod Wilson wrote
> > On Wednesday 13 October 2004 08:54, Grant Edwards wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 11:02:28AM -0400, Matt Mossholder wrote:
> > > I suppose. To me something that never changes is static,
> > > regardless of where it's stored.
> > I'm still not a fan of doing things that way. What happens if the
> > DHCP server croaks? All of a sudden, none of your servers have any
> > IP address (once their DHCP lease expires)...
> What happens if your myth server croaks? All of the sudden you miss
> recording 9 episodes of I love Lucy and none of your TVs work. So what?
True, but still, one could wonder whether it is more work to add many
MAC-based 'static' entries in the DHCP servers config versus just configuring
the few boxes that need non-changing addresses just with a static IP.
In any case, if we assume that the scope of this is broader than just mythtv
backends, but all servers in general, I for my part want my servers to remain
up and reachable no matter how much DHCP servers get killed on the LAN.
Cause most of my servers tend to have a 'slightly higher' uptime than some
random W2k box or DSL modem that's assuming the role of DHCP server.
As a matter of fact, the few times I did configure a server through a dhcp
entry I often gave it a ridiculously high leasetime, like 600 days or so,
just to make sure it was not dependent on some botched DHCP server. ;-)
> Whether DHCP is a good or bad idea for anything is really wasted debate.
> Every network admin has a reason for doing things they way they do, and
> every network is different than any other.
Very true indeed. Some people may even have their dhcp server running on I/F
'lo' and hand out 127.0.0.0/8 addresses there. But then again those people
might want to rethink that procedure... ;-)
More information about the mythtv-users