dhcp vs static ip

I've ran both static and dhcp networks and it really depends on how much your PCs change and how secure you are on your empty wall ports.

If you don't have regular PC replacements/additions I can see little benefit from undergoing the conversion process. You will have to go round all your PCs and change the way they get their IP addresses to automatic rather than having a static one. You will then have to setup the DHCP server with available IP addresses and remembering to keep a static pool for things like network printers.

What I am saying is that you could be undertaking a large process for no real benefit. DHCP certainly does not make your network any faster.. If anything.. very slightly slower.

Yes, once that process has been done and all the administration sorted out, putting a new PC on the network is a relatively simple process as long as your IP pool has enough space. Also, if you later change IP address scheme etc then you only have to change things in one place.. on the dhcp server rather than visiting every PC.

On a security note, if you don't disable unused wall port, with dhcp that port is potentially a huge back door into your network. Someone can just plug in a laptop from an available socket and off they go. With dhcp, you have saved the time of worrying about ip/subnet etc.

Golden rule, if it ain't broke.... don't fix it!

I think it really depends on the size of your network. The bigger it gets, the more attractive DHCP becomes by reducing the administrative overhead. Unless, of course, you have some over-riding reason (such as security) not to use it