3 ms·
I also mentioned why it is superior to static IP configuration. If you never make mistakes settings static IP addresses static IP is okay. But you will make mis
by sanxiyn 9y ago
I also mentioned why it is superior to static IP configuration. If you never make mistakes settings static IP addresses static IP is okay. But you will make mistakes.
- latchkey 9y agoI know exactly how many machines I have, where they are located and what IP address they should have. If a single machine isn't doing what I expect, it is immediately obvious in the pretty graphs that I have with Grafana/Prometheus. Any 'mistakes' are easily rectified, but so far, we haven't had a single issue along these lines. I've tried it both ways, the benefits of static IP, for the reasons I mentioned, far outweigh any negatives. DHCP is great for a coffee shop, workplace or college campus, where you don't know anything about your clients or care to. In my case, I need to know exactly who is on my network at all times and exactly where they are located, without having to cross reference switch ports and MAC addresses. In one DC, I don't even have access to the switches.
- sanxiyn 9y agoEh... the point of port-based DHCP is exactly not to cross referene switch ports... Cross referencing MAC addresses is stupid and unworkable. Full agreement there. There is location and cabling, and static IP addresses. You seem to make sure they agree, going so far as "plug ethernet in one at a time", WTF. Port-based DHCP makes those two agree, automatically.
- latchkey 9y agoLike I said, I don't have access to the switches. You're also assuming that someone in the DC doesn't mix up the cables. I've seen that happen multiple times. Agreed, plugging one in at a time isn't the best, but it works and only happens once per machine. Short of writing a lot of code, it is not the end of the world.