<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:08, Robin Hill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:myth@robinhill.me.uk">myth@robinhill.me.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Is there any reason you're using DHCP for these rather than using normal static IP addressing though? If you're going to fix DHCP assignation via MAC addresses then it doesn't seem any more convenient than static addresses, but with the downside that you're dependent on the DHCP server.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I do it this way myself because then it's only done in one place, and I don't have to go to each and every machine to make adjustments if I add, rename, remove, or renumber a host.<br><br>I find that dnsmasq makes it super convenient. It tells all the local machines to use itself for DNS resolution as well as DHCP, and then resolves the local names for everyone as well as external records. YMMV as always, but I recommend it if you have more than just one or two hosts on your LAN.<br>
<br>$0.02,<br>Eric<br></div></div>