I confess that I have a bad attitude toward DHCP on small networks. As a
general rule I recommend that small networks where DHCP services are
provided by low end routers or ICS use static addresses for the following
reasons:
1. The rudimentary DHCP services provided by ICS and bottom end Internet
routers are primarily useful only if one or both of the following are true:
a. You have a large number of machines on the network such that manual
configuration is truly burdensome.
b. You have laptops or other machines which will frequently be moved to
another network where they need different settings. Note that with XP you
can have an alternate static configuration for use when DHCP is not
available. Also, there is nothing to prevent you from providing DHCP on a
small network, but then configuring most of the machines with static
addresses.
2. Many people have spent a great deal of time troubleshooting DHCP issues
on small networks where relying on DHCP provides little benefit and
unnecessarily creates a single point of failure which could easily be
avoided with static addressing.
3. With static addresses you can reliably connect to another machine by
using \\<IPaddress>. You don't have to memorize the addresses. You can
create lmhosts files which will map the computer names to their static
addresses; and these mappings can be loaded into memory upon machine
startup. You can also create desktop shortcuts to them. If you were to do
this, then you could still connect to shared resources even if DHCP, bowser
service, and broadcasts all failed. Note that DHCP, bowser service, and
broadcasts are all broadcast based or initiated such that they are prone to
occasional failure even on perfectly healthy networks.
4. For the reasons stated in #3, even on large networks with sophisticated
DHCP servers, machines providing shared files or printers are typically
configured with static addresses.
Disclaimer: This is not an original idea - it was common practice prior to
APIPA, ICS and cheap DHCP devices. I do not think that it is a waste of
time to troubleshoot small network DHCP issues; but there have been too many
cases where DHCP failure has crippled such networks unnecessarily.
Doug Sherman
MCSE, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP
"Eugene Fridman" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Doug,
>
> Thank you very much for the reply.
>
> I added router IP (192.168.1.1) to the DNS server list and it did the job.
> So I have working static IP now.
>
> Still do not know why dynamic setup stopped working though.
>
> Eugene
>
> ================================================== =========
> "Doug Sherman [MVP]" <> wrote in
message
> news:...
> > Try:
> >
> > 1. Ping 216.109.112.135
> >
> > 2. Ping yahoo.com.
> >
> > 3. If #1 does not work, the problem is routing - make sure your router's
> > internal IP is listed as your default gateway, and make sure the router
is
> > not configured to block your machine.
> >
> > 4. If #1 works and #2 does not, the problem is likely DNS. Try
entering
> > the IP of your router for DNS. If that doesn't work, determine the IP
of
> > your ISP's DNS server and use that.
> >
> > Doug Sherman
> > MCSE, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP
> >
> > "Eugene F." <> wrote in message
> > news: oups.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > After I rebooted my DHCP router my 98SE system could no longer
> > > automatically obtain an IP. So I set the static IP. This allowed me
> > > to ping the router successfully but I still can not browse the Web.
> > >
> > > It could be a DNS issue or something else.
> > >
> > > What would be an appropriate troubleshooting sequence?
> > >
> > > TIA, Eugene
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
Similar Threads
