XPost: comp.mobile.android, alt.os.linux, alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: nospam@nospam.invalid   
      
   In article , Frank Slootweg   
    wrote:   
      
   > > > > his *guess* is that a static ip is the solution without realizing all   
   > > > > the problems it will cause for both himself and others.   
   > > >   
   > > >   There's no 'guessing' involved. A static IP *is* the solution.   
   > >   
   > > no it definitely is *not*. a static ip *will* cause problems, both for   
   > > him *and* others.   
   > >   
   > > the solution is to use reserved dhcp, or ideally, dns and let the   
   > > router deal with the ip management.   
   >   
   >   You seem to think that your use of terms is some kind of standard.   
   > Guess what, it isn't!   
      
   guess what. the use is standard.   
      
   >   These terms are ambiguous,   
      
   they are not in any way ambiguous. they are well defined networking   
   terms.   
      
   >   so when using them, you should explain what   
   > *you* mean by them.   
      
   no need. they are industry standard terms.   
      
   >   For example you say that a "static IP" is not the solution and that   
   > one should use "Static DHCP" instead (which, as you say, is a misnomer).   
      
   correct. static dhcp is the proper solution.   
      
   >   But what you call "Static DHCP" is called "Static DHCP IP" (note the   
   > addition of " IP"!) on my router.   
      
   dhcp assigns ips, so calling it 'static dhcp ip' is redundant and   
   doesn't change anything.   
      
   >   Since "Static DHCP" is a contradiction in terms,   
      
   technically yes, but it's commonly used and understood what is meant.   
      
   >   is it so silly to say   
   > "Static IP" when the actual setting in some router is "Static DHCP IP"?   
      
   not only silly, but it's stupid because the term 'static ip' means   
   something completely different than 'static dhcp ip'.   
      
   using them interchangeably would be an incredibly bad idea.   
      
   what's silly is the term 'static d(ynamic) hcp', but many people call   
   it that and it has become common usage. call it reserved dhcp if you   
   prefer a less silly term, but expect to see static dhcp used to mean   
   the same thing. it's just how it is.   
      
   > No, of course it isn't, because it leaves out the silly contradiction in   
   > terms.   
      
   static dhcp ip still has the contradiction. just what do you think the   
   'd' in dhcp stands for?   
      
   > That the static IP is probably managed by the same function which   
   > also assigns dynamic IPs is totally irrelevant.   
      
   nope. it's very relevant.   
      
   static ip is configured on the device.   
   static dhcp/reserved dhcp is configured on the router, as is standard   
   (non-reserved) dhcp.   
      
   >   So now we have your terms "Reserved DHCP"/"Static DHCP", which are   
   > exactly the same as my term "Static IP",   
      
   no they definitely are not the same.   
      
   you're using the term 'static ip' incorrectly. it is in no way the same   
   as reserved dhcp/static dhcp.   
      
   > but yet you claim that your   
   > solution is the right one and mine is the wrong one, which is a tad   
   > strange for one and the same solution.   
      
   the only thing strange is that you're insisting your incorrect usage is   
   valid. it isn't.   
      
   actually that's not all that strange, since you do that a lot.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)