DDNS handling of "dumb" DHCP clients
dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk
Thu Aug 9 12:45:32 UTC 2012
Uwe Meyer-Gruhl wrote:
>There are NIC-imposed minimum utilizations
Do you mean NOC imposed ?
Are these private addresses on a private network ? If so then you
really ought to be going back to the NOC (or rather their management)
and telling them to stop being a bunch of *****.
There really is no reason for imposing such constraints (and
headaches) on a private network.
Conversely, there really should be any reason to require a printer to
be on a public (IPv4) address.
>There should be no need for a DHCP client to know its IP nor its DNS
>handle before it gets them from the DHCP server (nor to report it
>back via the FQDN option).
OK, I see where you are - I've always preferred to keep printers on a
static address because there is (or was) too much hassle having them
As I say, you're in ground I don't cover so I'm a bit limited in what
to suggest. I don't recall ever having problem like you describe
There is another option that may be relevant, you'll have to look it
up and work that out for yourself :
>If the use-host-decl-names parameter is true in a given scope,
>then for every host declaration within that scope, the name provided
>for the host declaration will be supplied to the client as its
Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed
author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.
More information about the dhcp-users