More Linux things. Is a Linux computer with dhcp service better than a router?

[stilly]

I was reading a magazine article and it mentioned that a home built linux based system that acts as a DHCP server is often times better and more stable than a typical router with DHCP but it did not mention anything specific or give any examples.

I thought DHCP was DHCP. I mean, I know that sometimes routers screw up and you have to reboot them in order to get them to give people access to the net, but I do not know if that is a DHCP issue or not. (yes, I know it could depend on the IP addresses that the computers have that can not get onto the net). But I mean, is it really that much better to have? I am curious because if I am to do a second legal office, I was thinking of maybe incorporating a linux box into the mix to now act as a DHCP server and just kick the modem down to bridge status or whatever. This was an article in Linux User Magazine btw, it had a dvd with 4 distros and talked a lot about the Raspberry PI. I was also thinking of building one of those and seeing if I could use it for things.

Any thoughts on the DHCP?

[chris1911]

Well with the linux box acting as the DHCP server I don't really see it making much of a difference. I usually only have static networks set up anyway. I could see having a dedicated linux box to act as the gateway working a lot better than some ****ty modem/router from your ISP though.

[tonyxcom]

I would not use a linux computer as a router in a production enviroment. Too many things to fail in a computer.

I would just get a high quality router and it will likely be more stable.

FYI, your typical Linksys, Netgear, Dlink, Belkin etc router that you get at Best Buy or whatnot aren't suitable for production environments either IMO.

Netgear does have some higher end routers (like this) that I have had good luck with. I think the one I use at one of my employers hasn't been reboot all year.

I think the only advantage a Linux computer as a router brings are some very advanced features at a much lower cost than a high end router.

[ocabj]

Routing is routing. DHCP is DHCP. They are two different things and are independent of one another and are on two different layers (routing is network layer, DHCP is application layer).

Are you asking if you can run DHCP on a Linux box instead of on the router appliance? Yes, you can. You would still need the router to route your network traffic though.

Could you replace the router completely with a Linux box? Yes, you can. You would simply run two network interfaces in a Linux box, setup iptables to handle NAT between your internal IP space and the Internet, and have the Linux box issue DHCP IP addresses as well.

Is this worth doing? Probably not. The only reason I ever ran a NAT using a Linux server at home back in the day was because I already had a spare computer laying around and I was too cheap to get a home router.

[Wildeman_13]

Are you a home user who surfs the web, reads articles online, surfs some pron on occasion and maybe some shopping?

If so, then you are fine and no need to change anything.

If you need to do more and run a small business or consulting out of your home then you already should have higher end hardware as was mentioned above. 99.999% of people out there don't need anything more than a good ol' Cisco/Linksys/Netgear/ETC WAN device connected to a Cisco/Linksys/Netgear/ETC wireless that provides DHCP.

[Cowboy T]

I do a lot of work with GNU/Linux boxes and Cisco routers, and I've done DHCP with both.

A GNU/Linux box will make a fine and very reliable DHCP server. Yes, it also makes an excellent, and yes, reliable router. With iptables, you can do just about everything with a Linux-based router that you can with, say, a Cisco, or Juniper J-series, unit. I've done this in quite a few applications.

In my specific case, my home broadband router (I have a business account) is a Cisco unit. It serves DHCP to my LAN and does a mighty fine job. Before that, I was using a K12LTSP (K-12 Linux Terminal Server Project) server, in a single-NIC configuration, as the LAN's DHCP server, back when I was running thin client terminals.

[strlen]

Most wifi/et al routers these days are Linux computers with DHCP servers. If you;'re just looking for something basic, it's probably simpler to go with an off-the-shelf wifi router -- you can then re-flash it with, e.g., DD-WRT if you want to have ssh access to it and run custom applications, etc...

If you're looking to learn systems/network administration, the setting up your own Linux based router/firewall will be a very useful and enlightening experience. I highly recommend even if it's impractical.

[Fizz]

I've experimented with PFSense and the like. It works. Windows Server DHCP service also works. DHCP on SonicWalls and the like also work.

It's pretty rare to have DHCP fail on anything. When it does, reboot/restart service.

DHCP gives out IP addresses while making sure it doesn't issue the same one to multiple nodes (can't always be prevented, if say you accidentally assign a static on a node). It's also generally responsible for informing nodes of what the gateway is, what are the DNS servers, etc. In some environments DHCP will also do what's known as Option 66 (used a lot by IP phones to support auto provisioning.)

Other than that it's a pretty basic stuff that's been in use for so long that there's not a whole lot to screw up.

[naeco81]

If you know what you're doing a self-built Linux box makes an excellent router. If you don't know what you're doing buy something off the shelf. The reason people use Linux boxes are two fold:

1. Better hardware than off the shelf routers
2. Better software than off the shelf routers

As you might expect, better hardware means more performance. Most users won't benefit from this at all and there are higher end off the shelf options that use more robust hardware to achieve similar results. The primary virtue for most is the flexibility of software. With a Linux box you can put whatever you want on it.

[Peter.Steele]

As you might expect, better hardware means more performance. Most users won't benefit from this at all and there are higher end off the shelf options that use more robust hardware to achieve similar results. The primary virtue for most is the flexibility of software. With a Linux box you can put whatever you want on it.

To expand on this: your average high-end broadband connection at home is still not capable of swamping a 1997-vintage 10/100 router.

[naeco81]

Yup. I probably should have worded that differently to avoid the idiot tax on people that can only see more performance. Well obviously you gotta have MORE performance! I apologize in advance for any new threads created by people who now can't get their XBOX to work on wifi thanks to their stupid Linux router that sucks.

[spamsucker]

Linksys etc... are appliances. They've been specifically engineered for high uptime and being used by dolts that shouldn't have computers. A Linux server running DHCP is not a firewall/router. It's just a DHCP server. There are a number of bits that need to be installed and configured to use a Linux server the same way you'd use a Linksys. All of them are complicated and require deeper understanding of networking and security than most people could ever hope to have.

The Linux server will be wickedly more flexible and able to be customized vastly more, it's also bloody difficult if you're not a geek that does this stuff professionally. Once you've gotten past all that, the server is still a much less reliable option. General purpose computers are just that, and being good for anything doesn't mean they're great for anything.

Stick with the appliance type router unless you have some exotic reason to go to a massively more complex and difficult to deal with solution.

[Fizz]

To expand on this: your average high-end broadband connection at home is still not capable of swamping a 1997-vintage 10/100 router.

This is true for the interface.

Where you run into issues with low end hardware is if you're running services, VPNs, etc. that tax the memory/processing power of the firewall. Ex, if you look at the specs on SonicWalls site, they can handle pretty much any connection while not running any services, if you run all the services, the amount of bandwidth they can handle becomes limited due to the processor overhead.

[Peter.Steele]

This is true for the interface.

Where you run into issues with low end hardware is if you're running services, VPNs, etc. that tax the memory/processing power of the firewall. Ex, if you look at the specs on SonicWalls site, they can handle pretty much any connection while not running any services, if you run all the services, the amount of bandwidth they can handle becomes limited due to the processor overhead.

Your average computer user can't even spell VPN, let alone know what it is. Yeah, I use one, so I've got a pretty high-end network setup ... but the vast majority of people out there don't need to spend the money.

[NoSpam]

A dedicated DHCP server isn't going to make a difference in a small office or home setup. DHCP itself is a very simple and low-resource service. All the routing that happens after DHCP is applied is where a dedicated server would come in handy.