I took over a small windows 2000 network. Have 1 server and 9 clients with
static ip's. Salesman wants me to switch over to dhcp server but i see no
advantage on this small of network. can anyone tell me the pros and cons of
changing.

"Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:B68E9E59-2621-48C5-8813-(E-Mail Removed)...
> I took over a small windows 2000 network. Have 1 server and 9 clients
with
> static ip's. Salesman wants me to switch over to dhcp server but i see no
> advantage on this small of network. can anyone tell me the pros and cons
of
> changing.

Here are the advantages of DHCP:
- Each machine gets an address automatically. There is no need
to manage addresses.
- Each machine gets its correct Default Gateway and DNS
addresses automatically from the DHCP server.

If your environment is static (i.e. the same PCs most of the time)
then you won't gain anything from changing to DHCP.

Graham wrote:
> I took over a small windows 2000 network. Have 1 server and 9 clients with
> static ip's. Salesman wants me to switch over to dhcp server but i see no
> advantage on this small of network. can anyone tell me the pros and cons of
> changing.


Never touch a running ssytem

well if you ahve ne minte per computer to enter the stuff, so you have
nmot to setup dhcp and so tehre is one service less running (and one
service less, which can make trouble).

If the 9 computer are allway the same, etc. i think there is no need to
change to dhcp.

regards, enno

--
http://www.verbrennung.org

Graham wrote:
> I took over a small windows 2000 network. Have 1 server and 9
> clients with static ip's. Salesman wants me to switch over to dhcp
> server but i see no advantage on this small of network. can anyone
> tell me the pros and cons of changing.

I'd use DHCP. Even with so few clients, it's a lot easier to control changes
& configuration from a central location. If you have salespeople who use
laptops, it's a lot easier for them too - they don't have to manually
reconfigure anything (note also that changing IP addresses requires local
admin rights, which are a whole nother kettle of fish!)

Graham:

If you use DHCP you won't need to worry about managing your IP's - such
as who has which IP, and which IPs are not already used. You can avoid
any trouble with duplicate IPs when setting up new machines, or
reconfiguring old ones. Also, DHCP makes it easier if you ever need to
change your DNS, WINS, or Gateway IPs.

From a management and scalability perspective, DHCP seems like it would
help you out. However, if you don't feel comfortable changing your
system, the network is small enough that you could get away without it.

--
Matt Wagner
Enterprise Engineering Center
Microsoft Corporation

Legal Disclaimer:
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms
specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm Please do not
send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias is for newsgroup purposes
only.


Graham wrote:
> I took over a small windows 2000 network. Have 1 server and 9 clients with
> static ip's. Salesman wants me to switch over to dhcp server but i see no
> advantage on this small of network. can anyone tell me the pros and cons of
> changing.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:18:02 -0800, Graham
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>I took over a small windows 2000 network. Have 1 server and 9 clients with
>static ip's. Salesman wants me to switch over to dhcp server but i see no
>advantage on this small of network. can anyone tell me the pros and cons of
>changing.
>
I'd use DHCP. If someone wants to add a computer to the nextwork you
have to figure out what address is free. If you want to plug in a
network printer you have to figure out an IP address. Sure you could
keep a spreadsheet, but it might not be kept up to date.

WHY did the salesman think DHCP is a good idea? What selling points
does DHCP have for HIM.

Cheers,

Cliff
--

These twin-CPU hyperthreading computers are really
great! We can wait ten to a hundred times faster
these days.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:18:02 -0800, Graham
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >I took over a small windows 2000 network. Have 1 server and 9 clients with
> >static ip's. Salesman wants me to switch over to dhcp server but i see no
> >advantage on this small of network. can anyone tell me the pros and cons of
> >changing.
> >
> I'd use DHCP. If someone wants to add a computer to the nextwork you
> have to figure out what address is free. If you want to plug in a
> network printer you have to figure out an IP address. Sure you could
> keep a spreadsheet, but it might not be kept up to date.
>
> WHY did the salesman think DHCP is a good idea? What selling points
> does DHCP have for HIM.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff

salesman, potentially moving around the city, country - potential to
connect to other networks to receive abaility to get internet/email/vpn
access, etc, etc .... dhcp would allow this ... static would cause
headaches all round - not exactly a difficult scenario to envisage!

my personal answer - if your using win2k server as your server then
start up the dhcp and even if you use it just to allow this salesman the
above scenario. you can leave all the other systems on static by not
including their address's in the scope for dhcp.

all depends on how you want to run your own network.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:04:36 -0000, jas0n <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:18:02 -0800, Graham
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> >I took over a small windows 2000 network. Have 1 server and 9 clients with
>> >static ip's. Salesman wants me to switch over to dhcp server but i see no
>> >advantage on this small of network. can anyone tell me the pros and cons of
>> >changing.
>> >
>> I'd use DHCP. If someone wants to add a computer to the nextwork you
>> have to figure out what address is free. If you want to plug in a
>> network printer you have to figure out an IP address. Sure you could
>> keep a spreadsheet, but it might not be kept up to date.
>>
>> WHY did the salesman think DHCP is a good idea? What selling points
>> does DHCP have for HIM.
>
>salesman, potentially moving around the city, country - potential to
>connect to other networks to receive abaility to get internet/email/vpn
>access, etc, etc .... dhcp would allow this ... static would cause
>headaches all round - not exactly a difficult scenario to envisage!
>
Ah.. I was thinking of an external salesman, such as one selling you a
router/firewall inna box.
>
>my personal answer - if your using win2k server as your server then
>start up the dhcp and even if you use it just to allow this salesman the
>above scenario. you can leave all the other systems on static by not
>including their address's in the scope for dhcp.
>
>all depends on how you want to run your own network.
>
Mmm, in a small network I'd either go all DHCP or all static. It may
be too confusing otherwise.

Cheers,

Cliff
--

These twin-CPU hyperthreading computers are really
great! We can wait ten to a hundred times faster
these days.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:04:36 -0000, jas0n <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
> >> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:18:02 -0800, Graham
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I took over a small windows 2000 network. Have 1 server and 9 clients with
> >> >static ip's. Salesman wants me to switch over to dhcp server but i see no
> >> >advantage on this small of network. can anyone tell me the pros and cons of
> >> >changing.
> >> >
> >> I'd use DHCP. If someone wants to add a computer to the nextwork you
> >> have to figure out what address is free. If you want to plug in a
> >> network printer you have to figure out an IP address. Sure you could
> >> keep a spreadsheet, but it might not be kept up to date.
> >>
> >> WHY did the salesman think DHCP is a good idea? What selling points
> >> does DHCP have for HIM.
> >
> >salesman, potentially moving around the city, country - potential to
> >connect to other networks to receive abaility to get internet/email/vpn
> >access, etc, etc .... dhcp would allow this ... static would cause
> >headaches all round - not exactly a difficult scenario to envisage!
> >
> Ah.. I was thinking of an external salesman, such as one selling you a
> router/firewall inna box.
> >
> >my personal answer - if your using win2k server as your server then
> >start up the dhcp and even if you use it just to allow this salesman the
> >above scenario. you can leave all the other systems on static by not
> >including their address's in the scope for dhcp.
> >
> >all depends on how you want to run your own network.
> >
> Mmm, in a small network I'd either go all DHCP or all static. It may
> be too confusing otherwise.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>

;o) ... to who? lets face it, any single site office network of less
than 50 desktops is rarely confusing in configuration ... unless maybe a
shiny mcse has had his grimy paws on it first off!!

jas0n wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:04:36 -0000, jas0n <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:18:02 -0800, Graham
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I took over a small windows 2000 network. Have 1 server and 9
>>>>> clients with static ip's. Salesman wants me to switch over to
>>>>> dhcp server but i see no advantage on this small of network. can
>>>>> anyone tell me the pros and cons of changing.
>>>>>
>>>> I'd use DHCP. If someone wants to add a computer to the nextwork
>>>> you have to figure out what address is free. If you want to plug
>>>> in a network printer you have to figure out an IP address. Sure
>>>> you could keep a spreadsheet, but it might not be kept up to date.
>>>>
>>>> WHY did the salesman think DHCP is a good idea? What selling points
>>>> does DHCP have for HIM.
>>>
>>> salesman, potentially moving around the city, country - potential to
>>> connect to other networks to receive abaility to get
>>> internet/email/vpn access, etc, etc .... dhcp would allow this ...
>>> static would cause headaches all round - not exactly a difficult
>>> scenario to envisage!
>>>
>> Ah.. I was thinking of an external salesman, such as one selling you
>> a router/firewall inna box.
>>>
>>> my personal answer - if your using win2k server as your server then
>>> start up the dhcp and even if you use it just to allow this
>>> salesman the above scenario. you can leave all the other systems on
>>> static by not including their address's in the scope for dhcp.
>>>
>>> all depends on how you want to run your own network.
>>>
>> Mmm, in a small network I'd either go all DHCP or all static. It may
>> be too confusing otherwise.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Cliff
>>
>
> ;o) ... to who? lets face it, any single site office network of less
> than 50 desktops is rarely confusing in configuration ... unless
> maybe a shiny mcse has had his grimy paws on it first off!!

I'd say they're more confusing in configuration - but that generally means
in 'misconfiguration'.