Tim <ignored_mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Tim: >>> I'd say, if you're installing BIND, then run a DHCP server on that >>> same computer, and disable any other DHCP servers on your LAN (such >>> as in your modem/router). Configure your DHCP server to tell all >>> clients on your network the addresses for configuring your network >>> (gateway, DNS servers, etc.). Then leave NetworkManager running >>> normally, without any manual configuration on each client. >>> >>> That gets you a normal running network, where each client is >>> centrally configured from one server. There's no messing around with >>> any client configuration on any client. >>> >>> You can have dynamic or static IPs, for your clients, this way. It >>> depends on how you configure your DHCP server. > > lee: >> Why waste resources by running all this? > > If bothering to install a name server, why stop at a half-arsed job? On > anything more than a two or three machine LAN, it rapidly becomes a > nuisance to maintain hosts files. Been there, done that, not going to > do it again. Apparently the OP doesn't want to set up more than a caching-only name server. Remember that I recommended to set up named instead because it has its advantages. > Once done, it's easy enough to have the name server resolve local > machine names (which certainly aids some LAN networking, such as > internal mail, or other internal LAN or external services, new system > installs, and all manner of things become easier when you don't have to > laboriously hand-configure the client). And it's easy enough to > configure your DHCP server to set client addresses as desired. It's > even relatively easy enough to tie the DHCP and DNS servers together, so > one updates the other, when devices are added. > > I did this years ago, and never had to fudge around with hosts files > again. Never had to memorise which IPs referred to which machines, as I > could use hostnames on any machine. Never had to memorise all the > parameters that I'd have to set up into a client's configuration to make > it join the network. Just plug in the cable and it goes. > >> It's not like the IPs would change > > Ya think? > > You never get guest computers, or get asked to take in someone else's > computer and fix it, or install Linux on it for them? You never add new > devices? Some of which really expect DHCP (network printers, gaming > consoles, media devices). Or had to change some hardware, only to find > that the bastard device wants to be on a 192.168.1.x network rather than > a 192.168.0.x network that you're using, and you have to manually change > everything around, individually, to work past this. > > DHCP is a falsedeity-send, not a curse. No, I don't have these problems and no need for DHCP, so why waste resources on it. -- Fedora 17 -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
