How many folks are actually using dynamic IP address assignment?

Mark Boolootian <booloo@cats.ucsc.edu> Fri, 04 October 1996 22:58 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa22590; 4 Oct 96 18:58 EDT
Received: from marge.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23713; 4 Oct 96 18:58 EDT
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by mail.bucknell.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/17Jul96-0109PM) id AA13822; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 18:41:25 -0400
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 18:41:25 -0400
Message-Id: <199610042201.PAA17318@krazy.UCSC.EDU>
Errors-To: droms@bucknell.edu
Reply-To: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Originator: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Sender: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Mark Boolootian <booloo@cats.ucsc.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: How many folks are actually using dynamic IP address assignment?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]

I'm curious as to how many sites out there are actually assigning IP addresses 
dynamically.  From some of the comments I've seen on the ISC DHCP server 
mailing list, it sounds as if many sites are avoiding dynamic assignment, and 
opting for nailed up addresses handed out via DHCP.

Perhaps this is done for accountability purposes?  Or perhaps this is a
result of the problematic interactions between DNS and DHCP?  

Have those of you running with dynamic addressing encountered any especially
pernicious problems?  Anyone run into the problem of exhausting the available
pool of dynamic addresses - how did you discover this problem?  Just allowing
people to plug in and turn on would seem to necessitate some kind of monitor
to watch for this sort of thing.

Any and all comments in relation to this would be greatly appreciated.

regards,
mb