I'm saddened that an editor of Jim's stature would reduce himself to exploitation of the obvious. Apearantly just for filler.
Show me a Windows version that is in use today which doesn't perform this feat.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
...the scenario where one would want to use APIPA is so rare as to barely need mentioning. When a machine I'm troubleshooting connectivity on sets itself up with an APIPA address, I know that's no good!
"When the machine I'm troubleshooting sets itself up with an APIPA address, I know that's no good!"
So APIPA is useful as a troubleshooting tool that tells you when a NIC doesn't obtain an IP address. Is that all it's good for? That's how it appears to me.
Auto-configuring the NIC with an address that's outside of the network scope doesn't seem to be of much use, or am I missing something? Where's the value in using APIPA?
So APIPA is useful as a troubleshooting tool that tells you when a NIC doesn't obtain an IP address. Is that all it's good for? That's how it appears to me.
Auto-configuring the NIC with an address that's outside of the network scope doesn't seem to be of much use, or am I missing something? Where's the value in using APIPA?
I imagine the thought was that in a small network, where an admin would want the machines to be able to communicate via TCP/IP, here's a means of getting all players on the same page. Even if you're setting up a closed-system test network, at least you wouldn't have to worry about including DHCP as a variable.
And, no, I can't quite imagine actually using this. Anybody feel like just slipping back into NetBios land?
And, no, I can't quite imagine actually using this. Anybody feel like just slipping back into NetBios land?
With the one exception of the default view of "hiding file extensions" in Windows Explorer, this has got to be the most annoying "feature" that M$ has implemented.
Personally, if I can't get an address from a DHCP server, it would be MUCH better to just not get one and instantly know there's an issue.
Stupid M$ engineers...
And I agree with the first poster, since when is this new and/or not the default?
Must have been a slow day.
Personally, if I can't get an address from a DHCP server, it would be MUCH better to just not get one and instantly know there's an issue.
Stupid M$ engineers...
And I agree with the first poster, since when is this new and/or not the default?
Must have been a slow day.
I have found this function of windows to be in-valuable when activating / troubleshooting wireless networks. Some wireless adapters do not have a connection indication. When the wireless adapter fails to negotiate an IP address with the server / router, a quick check with ipconfig shows an IP address starting with 169.XXX.XXX.XXX. This is usually an indication that there is a problem with the wireless adapter setup. Sometimes this requires removing and re-installing the entire software package for the wireless adapter. I have not found a quicker tool that always shows a failed wireless connection.
Buy a used $5 linksys router from eBay. Why bother with anything else? At least you'll get a little firewall protection as well.
What happens when your automatically assigned address for your network printer changes?
As stated earlier, it's only useful for knowing that you have DHCP or connectivity problems.
If your network is that small, what's the problem with setting static IP's?
What happens when your automatically assigned address for your network printer changes?
As stated earlier, it's only useful for knowing that you have DHCP or connectivity problems.
If your network is that small, what's the problem with setting static IP's?
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
