> >> No, the same Internet Protocol. > > > I believe he meant different IP addresses > > No, that can't be, he would have said "IP addresses". > > > and I highly recommend doing so. > > > If you do so, then you can move services around and name things independent > > of > > the actual host that they happen to be on at the moment without having to > > renumber > > or rename. > > The DNS is already a layer of indirection so in most cases this makes things > harder first (having to remember which address is on which host) so they may > be easier later (not touching the DNS when services go to a new box). In my > opinion, this isn't a good tradeoff most of the time. Only if you want/need > addresses to be a particular way (like short for DNS servers) that's helpful.
Far from it. Running services on separate IP addresses is extremely important to enable services to move (to a different box) independently. It has little to do with wanting addresses to be a particular way, and much more to do with *other* places (e.g. firewalls) where IP addresses are used and not names. > I was reluctant to do stateless autoconfig for servers at first but it's > really rock solid, as long as you're reasonably sure no rogue router > advertisements will show up on the subnet in question there's no reason to > avoid it. Shudder. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
