From: Matthew Perry (mperry4@mail.lesley.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 10:16:35 CST
Hi, Here at Lesley University we have two NetReg setups. One is
for the students that gives out Dynamic addresses. The other we use on our
Administrative computers, this one gives out static
addresses. Clarification, We use NetReg to hand out static IPs via
DHCP. We have perl using a dbm to keep track of what IPs are in use. The
static IP are chosen via a perl script the looks at what segment they are
on and gives them the next free IP. This adds a layer of complexity to
NetReg cause it has to check for a free IP before it adds it to the
dhcpd.conf.new file. This way the administrative computers always get the
same IP but are also authenticated via NetReg, so we know who has what
without having to go to each computer and set the IP manually. I would
imagine that they use something similar to this for there students.
At 10:32 AM 3/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>At 1:07 AM -0500 3/16/03, Michael King wrote:
>Baron,
>
>If you don't mind, why do you want to assign Static addresses to your
>students? I personally see this as an administrative nightmare that,
>that quite honestly, defeats the entire purpose of DHCP. I couldn't even
>fathom trying to keep track of the address assigned to each student (all
>2000 of them) never mind the huge rush at the beginning of the semester
>when they all decide within one hour of each other they need there
>computer working.
>
>For your own sanity, I would reconsider. Not that doing it the way I am
>doing it is correct. I know one of the major contributors to NetReg runs
>his dorms all static IP's, and I'm pretty sure Rutgers still runs it's
>ResNet program with all static IP's. (they have around 10,000 residents)
>
>Mike
>
>Here at Saint Mary's College, we've been assigning fixed addresses from
>the outset. It hasn't been a problem. Our modified netreg code manages the
>hostnames and IP addresses. This was something our sysadmin required when
>I began implementation of netreg.
>
>Assigning addresses has its advantages. It is easier to track down
>machines with viruses, for example. Plus, this ended up liberating the
>"known hosts" pool which allowed me to use DHCP to "block" a machine from
>the Internet and our network if it's known to have a virus.
>
>For us, scalability hasn't been an issue since we only have around 1250
>registrations. Perhaps a database back-end would make such a scheme more
>manageable in larger networks.
>
>I plan to present this and other enhancements I made to netreg 1.2 at the
>ResNet 2003 Symposium in late June. Though my code is very specific to our
>network, it's open source, as per the GPL.
>
>--
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Steve Hideg
>Integrated Technologies Programmer
>Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame IN
><hideg@saintmarys.edu>
>____________________________________________________________________
>"It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as seconds
> since the Epoch precisely represent the number of seconds between
> the referenced time and the Epoch"
> --IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2
>**********************************************************************
>To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail message to
>majordomo@southwestern.edu containing a single line with the words:
>unsubscribe netreg
>Send requests for assistance to: owner-netreg@southwestern.edu
>**********************************************************************
Matthew Perry
mperry4@mail.lesley.edu
Network Technician
Lesley University
voice: 617-349-8772
**********************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail message to
majordomo@southwestern.edu containing a single line with the words:
unsubscribe netreg
Send requests for assistance to: owner-netreg@southwestern.edu
**********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 12 2004 - 12:01:38 CDT