Remote change the network settings

[Netmasker]

I have a windows 2000 network and I would like to change the network
settings (IP,
subnet mask, etc..) from the Win2k Server without sitting on every
workstation.
If it is possible, does "netsh" utility work from the network ?
Any other utility or script that can switch between network settings and can
be run from the Server ??

Thanks in advance.

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

DHCP not in use? If not, do it now....makes your life a lot easier.

 

[Hairy One Kenobi]

I have a windows 2000 network and I would like to change the network
settings (IP,
subnet mask, etc..) from the Win2k Server without sitting on every
workstation.
If it is possible, does "netsh" utility work from the network ?
Any other utility or script that can switch between network settings and can
be run from the Server ??

Strikes me this is similar to "how does a snowplough driver get to work?"

If you're connecting over a network connection, and drop the connection,
what do you think happens..?

Basically, drop the code onto the machine at boot/login, if at all possible,
drop something to make sure that it only ever runs once, and run it. You'll
then have to work out a way to notify you of an update, so that you can
catch the inevitable missed machines.

If it's a major renumbering, then expect operational mayhem. As has been
noted, DHCP is a good thought for large numbers of client machines. Do the
servers manually. - sysinternals.com for tools to (e.g.) automatically
bounce the box afterwards.

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!

 

[Mike]

DHCP not in use? If not, do it now....makes your life a lot easier.

Or Hell, depending upon your application.

Mike

 

[Kurt L]

If they are configured manually, you'll have to re-configure manually. And I
agree, use DHCP from this point on. If it's not set up, set it up before you
visit your clients. It'll be the last time you have to visit them for TCP/IP
changes.

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

I use DHCP even in 5-workstation networks and wouldn't go back to statics
for the world. There is simply no advantage that I can see. You can always
use a DHCP reservation for workstations that need a static.

 

[SANDMAN]

I have a windows 2000 network and I would like to change the network
settings (IP,
subnet mask, etc..) from the Win2k Server without sitting on every
workstation.
If it is possible, does "netsh" utility work from the network ?
Any other utility or script that can switch between network settings
and can be run from the Server ??

Thanks in advance.

Not sure if I understand you ? ... But if I do, just goto 'administrative
tools' and do your settings manualy.

 

[Spinner]

I found a tool that could change the network settings remotely and reboot
the machine if wanted to make them take effect.
It was called "TweakIP". I have not seen it around in awhile, but you might
try a search on the net.


"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"

 

[Mike]

I use DHCP even in 5-workstation networks and wouldn't go back to
statics for the world. There is simply no advantage that I can see.
You can always use a DHCP reservation for workstations that need a
static.

I was just putting a lighter side spin on it.

A case where you would have to go with a static IP would be where you had
to connect to a specific machine behind a firewall (pcAnywhere, FTP server,
etc.). But you could use static IP's on those machines and DHCP on all
others.

Mike

 

[europrint]

I use DHCP even in 5-workstation networks and wouldn't go back to
statics for the world. There is simply no advantage that I can see.
You can always use a DHCP reservation for workstations that need a
static.

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
#[email protected]:

DHCP not in use? If not, do it now....makes your life a lot easier.


Or Hell, depending upon your application.

Mike

I was just putting a lighter side spin on it.

A case where you would have to go with a static IP would be where you
had to connect to a specific machine behind a firewall (pcAnywhere, FTP
server, etc.). But you could use static IP's on those machines and
DHCP on all others.

Mike

Very true, and there is another viewpoint that supports the 'hell'
qualification: use Windos2K (AS) DHCP with a large number of reservations
(900 out of 1600 total leases). Then wait to see the irregular behaviour of
MS's DHCP: it starts to give out permanent leases to other machines than the
intended one. And it only happens with W2Ks DHCP..... Made my life a hell
for a while, then decided to revert back to NT4 DHCP, later I eliminated the
need for a lot of reservations. DHCP can be hell if the implementation sux.
I'm still thinking of sneaking in at night and replace the stuff with a nice
*nix DHCP.

But I do think the OP would be better of using DHCP for the usual stuff.

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

....or even better, DHCP reservations.

 

[zandt]

"Mike" avait énoncé :

Or Hell, depending upon your application.

Mike

both static and dynamic have their advantages and disadvantages.
overhead, security etc. but im more inclined to agree that the benefits
of DHCP outweigh those of dynamic assignment

 

[Guest]

"Mike" avait énoncé :

both static and dynamic have their advantages and disadvantages.
overhead, security etc. but im more inclined to agree that the benefits
of DHCP outweigh those of dynamic assignment

Uhh... DHCP and dynamic IP assignment are the same thing...

 

[zandt]

"(e-mail address removed)" a couché sur son écran :

"Mike" avait énoncé :

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
#[email protected]:

DHCP not in use? If not, do it now....makes your life a lot easier.


Or Hell, depending upon your application.

Mike

both static and dynamic have their advantages and disadvantages.
overhead, security etc. but im more inclined to agree that the benefits
of DHCP outweigh those of dynamic assignment

Uhh... DHCP and dynamic IP assignment are the same thing...

ah shit, u know what i mean, static

 

[Nightwalker]

but im more
inclined to agree that the benefits of DHCP outweigh
those of dynamic assignment.

Um.... am I missing something here? I thought DHCP *was*
dynamic assignment.

Of course.... I could just be stupid. It's happened before.
;o)