On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 19:09:27 +0000 Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> What advice would you give to a user regarding the benefits of a hosts > file as opposed to more modern techniques? By "more modern techniques" I will assume you mean DHCP and DNS. Hosts files are simple, easy to do. They have to be propagated and maintained, so they are obnoxious from time to time. With no DHCP, you have to had configure each host's network interface, usually at installation time, or when you introduce a computer to your network. This isn't always possible. Also, you will still need a DNS client on each machine so they can resolve external host names. DNS and DHCP require a lot more configuration up front. But once they are done, that can be all you have to do, and you shouldn't have to do anything at installation or introduction time. You can use DHCP to assign fixed IP addresses to some (or all) hosts, but that means some one-time configuration. A side benefit of running your own DNS server is that your hosts look to it, rather than to your ISP's server, which usually means faster turn-around time for lookups. Which is easier depends in part on how many hosts you have at any one time, what they are, and how often new ones arrived. These days, new arrivals may also mean guests' mobile phones and laptops. It may also mean "smart" gadgets. I have a pressure cooker on my network, and I doubt the creators of DNS had those in mind way back when. I don't think my pressure cooker has any way to manually configure its IP address, so it pretty well requires DHCP. If I were running an internet cafe or a computer repair shop, I would insist on DHCP and DNS. At the other end of the scale, if you only have a few machines and don't care about your guests' machines or "smart" gadgets, a hosts file may be simpler. I hope that provides some guidance. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
