DHCP vs. static IP addresses: Difference between revisions
Appearance
imported>WaybackImport Imported via HTML fallback (before-primary) |
imported>ImportBot Imported from scrape |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<PRE> | |||
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 16:42, Federico Grau wrote: | On Tuesday 14 August 2007 16:42, Federico Grau wrote: | ||
> Has anyone used DHCP (dynamically assigned) IP addresses with Rivendell | > Has anyone used DHCP (dynamically assigned) IP addresses with Rivendell | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
Cheers! | Cheers! | ||
Fred Gleason | Fred Gleason | ||
Latest revision as of 10:18, 9 May 2026
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 16:42, Federico Grau wrote: > Has anyone used DHCP (dynamically assigned) IP addresses with Rivendell > workstations? I see in rdadmin that there are several fields referencing a > Rivendell hosts' IP address and hostname. We have experienced problems if > they don't all match ... so I can't really imagine how things would work in > a DHCP environment where the IP and hostname are potentially changing > frequently. In a nutshell -- DHCP won't work well in a Rivendell environment. Early on in the design process, I did experiment with using DNS to resolve hostnames. Because of the non-deterministic nature of the DNS protocol (recursive lookups, etc), it didn't play at all nice with realtime performance. (When the user hits PLAY, it needs to play *now*, not when some name server three lookups away gets around to resolving a name.) Hence, the static IP address entries in the RD database. Cheers! Fred Gleason