IP of station to depend on who logs on

[John B]

I am configuring several XP Home computers in a peer-to-peer "workgroup"
environment. There is no domain or server, per se.

I would like to have a certain XP Home computer possess one IP address if
"User A" logs on. A different IP address if "User B" logs on. This is one
way of enforcing restrictions to folders in other XP Home computers. AFAIK,
XP Home's native ability to restrict file permissions is essentially nil.

Is there some script I might place in an autoexec.nt file, that can set an
IP address? Heretofore under XP Home, I only know how to set IP addresses
through the usual way...by viewing and changing the IP properties of a
"connection," through GUI.

Can different users have different autoexec.nt files?

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I am configuring several XP Home computers in a peer-to-peer
"workgroup" environment. There is no domain or server, per se.

I would like to have a certain XP Home computer possess one IP
address if "User A" logs on. A different IP address if "User B"
logs on. This is one way of enforcing restrictions to folders in
other XP Home computers. AFAIK, XP Home's native ability to
restrict file permissions is essentially nil.

Is there some script I might place in an autoexec.nt file, that can
set an IP address? Heretofore under XP Home, I only know how to
set IP addresses through the usual way...by viewing and changing
the IP properties of a "connection," through GUI.

Can different users have different autoexec.nt files?

If the users are truly 'users' and have no rights to change the IP when they
log on - I don't really see this happening. Otherwise - a startup script
using NETSH with a different dump to apply for each user. (Google it - if
you really want to do something crazy like that.)

Beyond that - I don't see it as practical. You should either get a server
or some centralized storage facility where you can limit permissions to a
folder by username/group membership - IMHO.

 

[John B]

CC from usenet:


Thank you for your informed response. Your reminder that a restricted user
lacks rights to change much is most convincing.

As you correctly deduced, this is more a matter of curiosity than concerted
purpose. Yet I'm always interested in a finesse solution.

It seems we're content to statically assign IP addresses to various
STATIONS, rather than USERS...be they restricted or otherwise. There are
other ways to skin this cat, but I won't digress into that now.