Static or DHCP addressing?

In many of my IP camera system installs, there has seemed to be a split between setting IP addresses to static in the cameras, or leaving them on DHCP, and setting them up through the DHCP server scope.

There are definite advantages for DHCP (central management, quicker camera replacement) and disadvantages (DHCP server down=no cameras accessible, needing access to a DHCP server)

Which approach do you guys use most frequently, and why?

WELL... I won't claim to be an IP camera know-it-all... I'm on here too much for you guys to know better.

BUT, I don't trust DHCP servers. I'm too afraid of it releasing and renewing somehow. Power loss, reset, whatever....

I've heard of others having luck with leaving their cameras at DHCP but I'd rather just be on the safe side.

The other day I left a server to DHCP and I'll be damn if I didn't come back a couple days later and it had changed! No reason at all. Last time I do that...

Also... another clear disadvantage of leaving them at DHCP is what if some donkey incorrectly plugs in a wireless router to your network? Guess what... you've got a rouge DHCP server on your hands. Yikes!!

I've actually had that happen btw... Not with a camera network though.

Static IP all the way

I generally prefer static as well, for the reasons already covered. Plus on a lot of sites, the camera positions are already numbered, and I like to assign IPs to match the position for easy management (192.168.2.101 for camera 1, .102 for camera 2, etc., for example).

There's nothing wrong with DHCP as such, but some systems (especially some cheap routers) implement it poorly, with short lease times and without support for reserved addresses. If set up properly, there's no reason it shouldn't work fine.

I have seen instances where machines would reboot and randomly receive new IPs from a router... but those were a particular line of LinkSys routers that had that issue. I mostly use D-Link, and they almost universally have DHCP reservation support, so once a camera pulls an IP from it, that IP can be added to a reserved list so that it will ALWAYS receive the same IP.

If you understand how DHCP works (or is supposed to work), there's little need for concern. With every IP assigned, a lease time is also set, that the IP assignment is good for. At the halfway point in the lease, a device will begin to poll the server for a renewal. It has up until the end of the lease period before the server will return the IP to the pool and make it available for another machine. Most client devices will retain the assigned IP indefinitely until it receives a new one, or until the IP is released.

The problem arises when the server and/or client devices don't follow the spec properly.

In my world... shoulds and shouldnts often don't and do.

Also, I agree with soundy. It's much easier to remember and troubleshoot when you have a scheme.

I agree that static addressing is often simpler, for the reasons a lot of you have already listed. However, in larger environments (schools, factories, etc.) the IT folks prefer to manage IP addresses through the reservation scope on their servers.

This does raise an issue in that for service, I either need access to their DHCP server for managing the MAC addresses, or rely on their people to manage it in a timely fashion (doesn't work well, sometimes).

How many instances have you guys had of this, and how well has it worked for you?