Re: [LUG] NFS with DHCP

[Julian Hall <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Neil Williams wrote:

[lots of sensible stuff including]

> Why not use Samba? That doesn't rely on NFS.
>  
Good point.  A blind spot (again).  As both run Linux at least part of 
the time I figured a Linux based networking solution would work best.  
However, you're right that Samba would be easier, in fact it *was* and 
now both boxes talk to each other happily.  I'll introduce Dad's laptop 
to the mix when I'm happy with these two.

> Static is not a luxury on an internal network,
>  
Bad wording on my part.  I only meant 'luxury' in that it was an 
available option, which I don't think it is with the wireless.  Having 
said that I just stumbled across a website which might give a solution.  
The suggestion is to leave the router on DHCP, but move the range up 
enough to accomodate any machines that need static IPs.  For example;

192.168.0.5 - 51.

If two machines need static IPs change the bottom end of the range to 
192.168.0.4 and give them 03 and 04.  That leaves the DHCP active to 
assign IPs to the wireless machines.

Having said that, I'm of the "If it ain't broken don't fix it" school of 
techs :)  Seeing as it works in Samba I'm not going to fiddle with it 
until/unless I get a reason to.

> Your wireless router may need DHCP to be enabled for wireless, but are you 
> sure that NO static IP can be over wireless? That's limiting.
>  
I'm pretty sure that's what the manual says.

> That will fail only because you can't resolve the hostname. Hostnames don't go 
> over the network, that's the IP. You must always be able to resolve a 
> hostname to an IP address.
>  
I gathered that from the last forays into this area :)

> Without dynamic DNS and careful scripting, I'd reconsider your options.
>
> Why haven't you done this in Samba?
I have now :)  Thanks for the advice :)

Kind regards,

Julian

--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.