[Tfug] Static/Dynamic (IP,name) bindings

[Bexley Hall]

Hi,

I've historically used static (name,IP) bindings maintained
"by hand".  And, with mnemonic aids to let me "resolve"
addresses even when the name server was down (e.g., so
a machine could find the printer "Curly" regardless!).

I now have too many nodes coming on-line to make this a
practical alternative -- I *must* rely on local name services.

To that end, are there any downsides of using DHCPd (coordinate
with BIND) to manage this sort of thing?  I.e., specify "fixed"
addresses for those hosts that I really want/need to sit at
specific places /managed from the dhcpd instead of manually
coordinating static assignments in each node with static
A and PTR records in the name server.

I recognize there's a risk in the DHCPd communicating with
the name server (to register updates, etc.).  And, some risk
with clients communicating with the DHCP service.  If, however,
all of this sits behind my bastion host, do I have any *real*
risks to be wary of?

Thx,
--don