<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 07/20/2011 09:37 PM, E. Westbrook wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEC9y9GPkOOro7vV75-+ZiKxfqVc456QW8d7ervXwTqMd3MQTg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:08, Robin Hill
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:myth@robinhill.me.uk">myth@robinhill.me.uk</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for the info!<br>
<br>
Haven't heard of dnsmasq before but it looks very interesting.<br>
I don't know if bind9 may be a bit over sized for my needs...<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Ramon<br>
</body>
</html>