On Apr 11, 2025, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 11 Apr 2025 at 05:45:47 (-0400), Dan Purgert wrote: > > > > (That doesn't mean you have to use > > > > mdns, it just means that if you instead decide to do something like > > > > copy hosts files around the network you're choosing to make up your > > > > own solution to the inherent problems that led to dns in the first > > > > place.) > > > > > > I can hardly take credit for inventing /etc/hosts. It's simple to set > > > up, and it causes no problems here. I don't think DNS was invented for > > > resolving two dozen non-hierachical names on one site. > > > > That's exactly what DNS was invented for. Manually managing host files > > is a pain after only a few hosts. Add one machine, and you have to > > update 5,10,20,[...] host files. > > So the last change I made was mid-November, for adding a new laptop. > I only change the DHCP when all my hosts are running. I login to > the router, add the reservation, and remove anything that has died > since the previous change, which was, as it happens, when I installed > my latest router in December 2023. I update the master file with the > same changes. I then run a script that transfers the master file > to the half-dozen hosts, edits the hosts own line to 127.0.1.1, and > prints a diff of the old and new versions. Finally a second script > does the same thing, except it overwrites all the old hosts files.
You've proven my point here. Managing the files got "annoying" enough that you scripted it. > > Yes, "Domain Names" do include hierarchy (e.g. "company.tld"); but > > that's more an artifact that when RFC 1035 was written, we were already > > seeing convergence of names for common services (mail, telnet, ftp, > > etc.). > > Sure, but not at this site", unless you count my adding a .corp TLD > to all my hostnames in 2018. (I think at the time that was to quieten > exim, but smarthosts may also appreciate it.) A proper "fully qualified domain name" by definition is "host.domain.tld". Just because you may or may not follow that in your local network is somewhat irrelevant -- it's somewhat akin to arguing that because your home network uses 192.168.0.0/24, that *all* residential networks use that address range. > > > > > For various reasons I'd much rather configure a static IP in this > > > > situation than set up a reservation on the dhcp server. Among other > > > > things, in a small network the bespoke dhcp configuration is likely > > > > going to cause pain that can't possibly outweigh the need to > > > > reconfigure a static IP if for some strange reason it needs to change. > > > > > > I don't know how to configure static IPs without a DHCP server when > > > there are devices that can only configure themselves by DHCP (or > > > maybe mDNS, I haven't tried). But what are the pain and the strange > > > reason? > > > > Correct -- if a device is stupidly-configured from the factory to > > REQUIRE DHCP, then you need to use DHCP. > > Welcome to the world of consumer electronics. Their /functionality/ > is certainly not stupid. I don't think you understood what I said. The "stupid-config" refers to the factory deciding that the only way your device can be setup to talk to the network is DHCP, and simply preventing any other method of configuration. It was not a comment directed at any "functionality" of those devices after they've been connected to your network. > > > mDNS is just a simplified name resolution tool. It doesn't do host > > configuration for network/netmask/gateway. > > No, I think it's designed just for a single network. As I said above, > I've found it useful for driverless printing, but nothing else. Yes, that would be "simplified" name resolution. > > Sounds like getting a better router would be a good idea (I mean, when > > the current one starts acting wonky). There are (or were) a handful of > > options that could manage to update the DNS resolver when new DHCP Hosts > > were added to the network (and, likewise, static entries for non-DHCP > > hosts). > > > > Granted, these days, they may need *wrt or tomato firmwares, because the > > good features always seem to be the ones that go away. :( > > My first router bought over here is now about 12 years old, cost $86 > at Radio Shack (R.I.P), has lost its WAN port and one LAN port over > the years, but is still working. It's replacement cost $38 at Walmart > and is also still at work. The third one, which hosts the DHCP server, > cost all of $14 at Staples (clearance). So I've got great coverage > with 3 APs, and one device could die with limited degradation, so > I can't say I'm in the market for yet another, and I've see no need > for a DNS server here. Did you miss the "when your current router starts acting up" part of my statement? -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
