General discussion

Locked

DHCP VS Static

By TPCosmo ·
We are just setting up a new remote office with less eight or so XP Pro computers. I'm debating my partner about how to set up the IP's. In our main office we have Win 2k3 servers doing the DHCP, but at the remote office we will have no server, just a firewall between the desktops and the Internet. I want to set them up with static IPs, but my partner wants to set up the firewall to perform DHCP functions as he believes that the network will work faster configured with DHCP. Is there any consideration for performance when deciding static vs dynamic? Any thoughts would be great.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

11 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

by curlergirl In reply to DHCP VS Static

In such a small network, there are really no performance issues with DHCP. The advantages to setting up the firewall router to perform DHCP functions, however, I think still weigh in favor of it. A properly configured DHCP server would ensure that all the IP settings on the workstations remain consistent, they all get the same subnet, gateway, etc., and therefore eliminates a possible source of problems.

Hope this helps!

Collapse -

by TPCosmo In reply to

Thanks....Never gave the fact the the settings will be consistent any consideration. Thats important too.

Collapse -

by sgt_shultz In reply to DHCP VS Static

microsoft sez recommended practice is to use static ip addresses. dhcp can be available and used for testing new stations quickly and for visiting laptops. if you set up dhcp printers eventually the drivers will break if the dhcp address changes which will happen eventually. just document each machine's settings. it is not faster running dhcp. except less skull sweat usually. if the firewall router box dies (not unlikely) you will all be down unless you are configured static. if you are static and it dies you just won't be able to get on internet but you will still be networking

Collapse -

by TPCosmo In reply to

I understand the aspects of DHCP, I am really interested in network performance.

Collapse -

by razz2 In reply to DHCP VS Static

This is interesting to see the different takes on DHCP.

I vote for DHCP. It gives the main advantage of one point of tcp/
ip managemet. Less chance for typo's or some other mis-
configuration. There is no performance difference either way. If
the firewall goes down then it is most likely the network switch
too and you would be down anyway. Both the internet and LAN
unless there is a seperate switch. You might want to have a
spare one that is preconfigured. You should never configure
TCP/ip printers as DHCP. Set them static and outside the
workstation scope. If you ever need a VPN or say the LAN grows
then DHCP permits both growth and reconfiguration much more
easily than static.

Good Luck,

razz

Collapse -

by TPCosmo In reply to

Thanks....

Collapse -

by jonno112 In reply to DHCP VS Static

This is our setup at the office

2 servers static ip addresses 10.81.85.11 and 10.81.85.12/24 Up to 15

3 Printers static ip addresses (These should have static ip addresses) .20 to .30

20 workstations XP DHCP assigned .40/.100
-------------------------------------------------
The overhead for a dhcp is minimal so that's not a main concern, dhcp is easier to manage than static on a larger scale.I would suggest For you 8 XP systems i would go static this will allow easier troubleshooting and remote access in the remote site.

note
With Dhcp you can change the lease time every 6 months or so but really whats the point.

You can change the scope on most firewall/routers
eg 10.81.85.50/24 to 10.81.85.254 this is dhcp assigned, so .40 .49 are free for static ip addresses that you assign to the 8 xp systems.

Anyone else who joins this remote office be it a laptop or something will be assigned a dhcp address.

I hope this helps.

Collapse -

by TPCosmo In reply to

Performance is what I am interested in.

Collapse -

by jonno112 In reply to DHCP VS Static

This is our setup at the office

2 servers static ip addresses 10.81.85.11 and 10.81.85.12/24 Up to 15

3 Printers static ip addresses (These should have static ip addresses) .20 to .30

20 workstations XP DHCP assigned .40/.100
-------------------------------------------------
The overhead for a dhcp is minimal so that's not a main concern, dhcp is easier to manage than static on a larger scale.I would suggest For you 8 XP systems i would go static this will allow easier troubleshooting and remote access in the remote site.

note
With Dhcp you can change the lease time every 6 months or so but really whats the point.

You can change the scope on most firewall/routers
eg 10.81.85.50/24 to 10.81.85.254 this is dhcp assigned, so .40 .49 are free for static ip addresses that you assign to the 8 xp systems.

Anyone else who joins this remote office be it a laptop or something will be assigned a dhcp address.

I hope this helps.

Collapse -

by TPCosmo In reply to

Poster rated this answer.

Back to Networks Forum
11 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums