General discussion


Comparison Between DHCP and Static IP!

By badrin.baharom ·
Currently I have more then 250 network client's . And I have DHCP server as well in order to distribute IP Address to Client. Let say I intend to change for Static IP for my entire network,what is the best justification I can address to my management?. What is advantange of Static IP compare then DHCP?. Need your guy's advise..Thank you.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Comparison Between DHCP a ...

Well firstly I can not see any advantage in doing this but as you asked here is a MS Link that might be of some use

However there is far more space devoted to moving from Static IP to DHCP on the MS Page refer to

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you are only looking at the short term and not being around when it comes time to replace hardware this will work but it will be a lot of work keeping the thing running as any error is going to cause quite a few of the Workstations to disappear off the network if not all of them.

And when the Hardware Replcaement Cycle comes around it's going to be a nightmare installing the new Hardware and setting them to the same IP Address that the old unit had. With one or 2 it's no problem but with a network this size it will mean a lot of extra work and that isn't even considering Hubs/Switches that rely on DHCP to work.


Collapse -

by anne2 In reply to Comparison Between DHCP a ...

Why do you want to change to static?

You can reserve dhcp addresses so a machine with a certain mac address always gets the same one. That does mean if you change out the netword card, you have to go through the process of reserving again.

I think dhcp came along so people would not have to maintain tables of ip addresses and make sure that they didn't assign two machines the same ip address. It seems like a lot less overhead for the administrator to let dhcp handle the issues. Until you have been the person trying to track down the duplicate ipaddresses, you can't really appreciate the benefit of dhcp.

Down side to dhcp would be that if a machine plugs in, that machine could get an address. Your security depends on how you are allowing people to get into your network. You should also keep logs so that you can say who had a certain dhcp address for a specified period of time.

I'm not sure I think static has a benefit. You have to keep a spread sheet with lists of ip assignments, then you are introducing complexity. what if the file becomes corrupt, or you add an address without adding to the spreadsheet? To me it's too risky to go back to the manual method.

Collapse -

by XT John In reply to Comparison Between DHCP a ...

If you're operating over a large distance, our WAN is spread out over 52 sites, four counties and 2000 square miles. To enable remote controls such as VNC, we just type in the ip and password. These sessions can be reverse started, but most of our users wouldn't be able to. We ask for the last octet (the first two are the same for everyone, the 3rd is key to their site and the last, specific to the machine). We normally name the machine using that last part of the ip, such as xxx105; and that name is labeled on the monitor and cpu. When they call with a problem, they tell us they're at ABC105, we log in and take a look. Static IP's for us are crucial for other central management (like Symantec AV), Terminal Services, routing, our Juniper firewall, etc.
In your situtation, DHCP works fine, and makes your life much simpler. Also, as previously answered, you can lock a DHCP address to a machine based on its MAC address. I did this at home, my kids machine has a 'static' DHCP address. That machine loses internet use from midnight til 6 am, the hours they always try to sneak on and be up all night. My laptop and home office machine are not affected. my $.02 :)

Collapse -

by adembo In reply to Comparison Between DHCP a ...

I see the only advantage (if you really want to say that) to using static is that if your DHCP server goes down and for whatever reason are not able to get another DHCP server online, then you'r clients are not going to have any problems. That is not a likely scenario and the headache of having to manage 250 systems if any changes were made would be a nightmare. You also would have to do your own logging, as you can see in the DHCP manager which host is assigned to what address.

Collapse -

by george.jenkins In reply to Comparison Between DHCP a ...

Don't change to static. If you do, you'll have problems every time you change your gateway or important network device. The local computers all have DNS cache and hosts tables and each would have to be updated per change. DHCP allows you to easily change your 200 computers. You should change to a class B address scheme though since you're running out of addresses if you're Class C right now. Also, don't forget to reserve a range of addresses for your statics. When you team NIC's on servers, they'll update your WINS server and won't change when you team them so team them before placing the server online. After you team them, plug the server onto the network with the proper IP address in the reserved group. Better yet, if you can eliminate WINS altogether, do it. This will help when troubleshooting naming resolution problems.

Back to Networks Forum
5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums