why use DHCP?

Other than allowing over 250 users to connect to a subnet why would anyone
want to use DHCP?

Seriously curious.
Thanks, Tracey

So you do not have to manage and manually adjust IP address on up to 254
computers. That is a lot of leg work.
What if you configure two computers with the same IP address? A DHCP server
takes all of the guess work out of the equation.
With windows XP you can alternately configure what is called APIPA in lieu
of DHCP, but not the best solution.

"Tracey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Other than allowing over 250 users to connect to a subnet why would anyone
> want to use DHCP?
>
> Seriously curious.
> Thanks, Tracey
>
>

Also, a Windows DHCP server can manage DNS client registration and provides
a host of scope options which might be difficult to configure manually.
Nevertheless, I recommend static TCP/IP configuration on small networks
especially where the only DHCP 'server' is a low end NAT router or an ICS
machine.

Doug Sherman
MCSE, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP


"Tracey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Other than allowing over 250 users to connect to a subnet why would anyone
> want to use DHCP?
>
> Seriously curious.
> Thanks, Tracey
>
>

I would use a DHCP server even if you want all the workstations configured
statically. You just reserve an IP for each workstation. You can then manage
everything from one pc rather than going around to each pc to change IP,
gateway, WINS, DNS etc. But then I'm just lazy and don't want to do all that
socialising when traipsing around fixing things every time something changes
:-)

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Tracey wrote:
> Other than allowing over 250 users to connect to a subnet why would
> anyone want to use DHCP?
>
> Seriously curious.
> Thanks, Tracey

http://www.cit.cornell.edu/computer/...dhcpintro.html

Hope that helps,

--
Louis Vitiello Jr.
------------------------------
MCSE, MCSA, MCP, A+/N+
ERCP XP Pro / Net Concepts



"Kerry Brown" <(E-Mail Removed)*a*m> wrote in message
news:ON$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I would use a DHCP server even if you want all the workstations configured
>statically. You just reserve an IP for each workstation. You can then
>manage everything from one pc rather than going around to each pc to change
>IP, gateway, WINS, DNS etc. But then I'm just lazy and don't want to do all
>that socialising when traipsing around fixing things every time something
>changes :-)
>
> --
> Kerry
> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
>
> Tracey wrote:
>> Other than allowing over 250 users to connect to a subnet why would
>> anyone want to use DHCP?
>>
>> Seriously curious.
>> Thanks, Tracey
>
>

It will much easier for network infrastructure changing and upgrading. I
will like setup DHCP where were windows servers are available.

Tracey wrote:
> Other than allowing over 250 users to connect to a subnet why would anyone
> want to use DHCP?
>
> Seriously curious.
> Thanks, Tracey
>
>

it also lets you re-use ip addresses. you can actually have isp's that have
more users than they have ip addresses in their dialup pool... as long as
they have enough for all their modems they can just assign them dynamically
to the users as they connect and not need to buy more addresses.

or on a user side, if you are moving from lan to lan, say while traveling
you go through airport hot spots, hotels, coffee shops, etc, with dhcp you
can automatically get the network settings at each location.

"wubing" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:tl84g.8446$BO2.271@trnddc02...
> It will much easier for network infrastructure changing and upgrading. I
> will like setup DHCP where were windows servers are available.
>
> Tracey wrote:
>> Other than allowing over 250 users to connect to a subnet why would
>> anyone
>> want to use DHCP?
>>
>> Seriously curious.
>> Thanks, Tracey
>>

Does DHCP negate the need for WINS?

I remember setting up an early version of Symantec Anti-Virus Server
Corporate Edition where the installation instructions requried a WINS server
to disribute updates to clients.

Thanks, Tracey

"Doug Sherman [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Also, a Windows DHCP server can manage DNS client registration and
provides
> a host of scope options which might be difficult to configure manually.
> Nevertheless, I recommend static TCP/IP configuration on small networks
> especially where the only DHCP 'server' is a low end NAT router or an ICS
> machine.
>
> Doug Sherman
> MCSE, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP
>
>
> "Tracey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Other than allowing over 250 users to connect to a subnet why would
anyone
> > want to use DHCP?
> >
> > Seriously curious.
> > Thanks, Tracey
> >
> >
>
>

Well, dynamic DNS has eliminated much of the need for WINS, but dynamic DNS
does not require a DHCP server except for down level clients. WINS provides
NetBIOS name resolution and it can do so across subnets. If you have a need
for WINS, switching from a static address scheme to DHCP will not eliminate
this need.

Doug Sherman
MCSE, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP

"Tracey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Does DHCP negate the need for WINS?
>
> I remember setting up an early version of Symantec Anti-Virus Server
> Corporate Edition where the installation instructions requried a WINS
server
> to disribute updates to clients.
>
> Thanks, Tracey
>
> "Doug Sherman [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Also, a Windows DHCP server can manage DNS client registration and
> provides
> > a host of scope options which might be difficult to configure manually.
> > Nevertheless, I recommend static TCP/IP configuration on small networks
> > especially where the only DHCP 'server' is a low end NAT router or an
ICS
> > machine.
> >
> > Doug Sherman
> > MCSE, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP
> >
> >
> > "Tracey" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > Other than allowing over 250 users to connect to a subnet why would
> anyone
> > > want to use DHCP?
> > >
> > > Seriously curious.
> > > Thanks, Tracey
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>