DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2006-08
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Static IP on DHCP system?

From: Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:20:09 +0800

Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
If my home router provides DHCP in the range, is there anything
wrong with me statically assigning a address to a box on the network?

Jonathon McKitrick
My other computer is your Windows box.

Not a problem.

We've run multiple 192- , 10- , and such for years, home and office.

Some sub-nets have exactly two devices, full stop.
Makes it easier to secure many services.

None of the commodity Planet, D-Link, NetGear, Linksys, etc. - router/NAT/firewall devices will *ordinarily* leak these 'other' nets to the upstream side, and most cannot even be asked to do so from their stock interface.

That said, you probably want a 192.- on all/most of your gear as well, and these can be fixed-IP's despite the NAT device offering DHCP to others on the same LAN.

man ifconfig for aliasing info.

You may also wish to set up some rules in the router/NAT device to block/allow or port-map services to specific boxen, hence the advisability of having those devices use a fixed-IP within the DHCP pool.

Note that where WinBoxen are involved, we use a separate physical plant and no bridging. Even the printers are separate (or use parallel-port / USB->parallel sharing devices). A 'bastion' *BSD box with 6 separate NICs lets us reach every machine or IP print device on all the separate cable plants, yet keeps the WinBoxen isolated. Each WinWoes 'seat' also has a Mac Mini n an Aten KVM for e-mail and browsing.

It isn't (yet) a capital crime to connect a WinBox to the internet.
But, considering the cumulative man-years (several lifetimes..) they cost humanity every day, not to mention billions of US$, it probably should be...




[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]