DDNS handling of "dumb" DHCP clients

[Simon Hobson]

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 
dynamic.

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 
though.

There is another option that may be relevant, you'll have to look it 
up and work that out for yourself :
>   use-host-decl-names
>
>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 
>hostname.


-- 
Simon Hobson

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.