Re: DHCP: Quick connection with a cross-over
- From: ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Moe Trin)
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:34:50 -0600
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.lans.ethernet, in article
<Xns9A22D13819A7Ftoelavabitcom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
Let's say we have Mary's laptop and Brian's laptop. Brian has a 6 GB
movie file on his hard disk that he wants to transfer to Mary.
Both laptops have a NIC with an ethernet port, so obviously it would be
a good choice just to connect them with a cross-over cable and use
something like FTP or Samba to send the file across.
Very normal situation and what "Rendezvous" or "Bonjour" from Apple was
designed for. Two sales-weasels meet in some airport waiting area, and
want to trade pr0n^H^H^H^Hsales leads.
We hook them up with a cross-over cable. We run the DHCP client on one
of the machines. There's no response because there's no DHCP server, and
so the machine adopts a random address in the network 169.254/16. (This
is what DHCP is supposed to do if it doesn't get a response from a DHCP
server, right?)
I'm not sure it's a function of DHCP, but it's normally used in windoze
and MacOS. Often, the idiot who set up the DHCP server screwed it up,
and rather than expose the problem, we'll just grab some random address
out of the 169.254.0.0/16 range and pretend nothing is wrong. See RFC3927
available at your favorite search engine.
3927 Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses. S. Cheshire,
B. Aboba, E. Guttman. May 2005. (Format: TXT=83102 bytes) (Status:
PROPOSED STANDARD)
But here's what I want to ask: Is this method of using "DHCP failure"
reliable for giving the machines IP addresses with which they can
communicate? Is it really as simple as "Stick a cross-over between them
and hit DHCP on both machines"?
Depends - assume first that the NICs are compatible (10BaseT verses
100BaseT verses Gigabit - half verses full duplex), and then that the
operating system knows about this security hole protocol, and that it
hasn't been disabled. Don't forget that if you are using different
operating systems (say, windoze and OSX, or one of the *nix), you may
run into name resolution problem. While Apple and microsoft got
together to work on RFC3927, they each went their own incompatible
way with name resolution, so you'll need to know how to use IP
addresses rather than names. Then there may also be firewall problems
on either or both systems.
On another thing: Can someone please suggest a very simply free FTP
server application for Windows?
Can't help there - got rid of windoze before they invented the Internet
or whatever microsoft is claiming now. But this sounds as if you want
normal file sharing - I thought that happened automatically unless you
disabled things.
Also another thing: If you're connecting only two computers together,
would it be more efficient to use something like PPP instead of
Ethernet? I'm talking about sending 10 GB files from one machine to
another.
'ppp' using what interface, verses Ethernet using what protocol?
'ppp' using the serial or parallel ports is going to be very slow.
USB _might_ be faster, but most systems are not configured to easily
do that. On the other hand, standard Ethernet has been around since the
1970s, and virtually every operating system knows how to handle this
by default.
Old guy
.
- References:
- DHCP: Quick connection with a cross-over
- From: Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
- DHCP: Quick connection with a cross-over
- Prev by Date: Re: DHCP: Quick connection with a cross-over
- Next by Date: Optimize File Transfer on a 100Mbps LAN
- Previous by thread: Re: DHCP: Quick connection with a cross-over
- Next by thread: Optimize File Transfer on a 100Mbps LAN
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
