So i was reading this guide to set up a router on Ubuntu. I want to install a router on a virtual Machine with Ubuntu Server OS to get a better understanding of port forwarding and plan on connecting 3-6 other virtual machines to the virtual router. The virtual router will be connected via bridget adapter with my real router and with the other virtual machines. In this guide(https://www.ascinc.com/blog/linux/how-to-build-a-simple-router-with-ubuntu-server-18-04-1-lts-bionic-beaver/ (https://www.ascinc.com/blog/linux/how-to-build-a-simple-router-with-ubuntu-server-18-04-1-lts-bionic-beaver/)) i was reading step two is "Setting up a DHCP Server" and the second sentence say:"We really don't want to configure each client with static IP within the LAN network." And i am wondering why?
I found the Topic "Pros and Cons of having DHCP on L3 switch"https://www.networking-forums.com/routing-and-switching/pros-and-cons-of-having-dhcp-on-l3-switch/15/ (https://www.networking-forums.com/routing-and-switching/pros-and-cons-of-having-dhcp-on-l3-switch/15/) and found this statement there without any further explanation
Quote from: deanwebb on April 07, 2016, 08:49:41 AM
Quote from: zarawatsonn on April 07, 2016, 01:35:27 AM
In my opinion having DHCP in switch is a best hassle free way to provide IP to the systems, i don't think there is no any cons.
In small environments, you are correct. In larger environments, it's not a very manageable arrangement.
I thought it would be easier for my Project to configure static IP adresses for each of my servers, as far as i would have easier overview if everything communicating properly. And i have a hard time understanding why a DHCP system (not on a switch) would be harder for a larger environment.
What is your take on this topic?
What are some advantages/ disadvantages of static IP vs DHCP from your experiences?
From my experience with large environments DHCP + DNS is your friend.
static ip is a manual thing, possible human error, entering bad netmask or default gateway, wins and DNS servers, all are prone to error with manual entry, this is fine for a small network <50 machines. but when you get in thousands of networks with tens of thousands computers, then it becomes a management nightmare.
consider portability, the company (not IT smart) CEO has 2 offices, one in NY one in NJ, now he commutes to both offices every day, he either has manually change his static IP address every time (not IT smart), or engage the service desk and wait 45 minutes for someone to change his IP address.
consider, wireless roaming would not be possible, once out of range of the AP, he with lose network connectivity, with DHCP when out of range of AP A, and connects to AP B. then a new IP address will be provided via DHCP and will still have network connectivity.
consider IoT, & your wearable device, cell phone and such, having to manual ip into your phone, iPhone, Ring doorbell, fitbit, TV, DHCP makes it all easier to manage.
one can always to DHCP reservations by MAC address for things that need a static IP, like a public web server such as this one.
if it were not configured with reservation, when the IP is changed, the site goes down,
if biggest drawback with DHCP, it knowing which computer has IP at any given time, in case of security incident. one would need to identify this as to not accuse the wrong person of incident.
My comment regarding DHCP provided by the individual switches was that once you get enough endpoints, it's where you run into how some vendors specifically state that their gear should NOT do DHCP in production (Cisco says that, actually, and there are reasons why) and manually putting in DHCP ranges on each switch can result in mistakes that lead to IP reuse problems.
Having a centralized DHCP server for a large deployment is the way to go: reservations are set up there for specific endpoints in specific locations, and having central provisioning of IP addresses reduces the risk of duplicate ranges in the environment.