both PC's were purchased with identical configurations - at the time IIRC it was HP boxes with P2 128 meg and Win NT 4.0 service pack 2. We did not have an NT domain at the time because we were an IPX shop, and all authentication was done against the Novell server. I'll accept that for whatever reason one of the NT machines still became dominant. Maybe it ran at 333.5 mh while the other ran at 333.1?
As I said, I did find some info on CCO ( search "ip helper" ) that indicated that the router would forward a packet addresses to each of the hosts that appears in the ip helper listings. interesting..... thanks for the response Chuck ""Gaz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I suppose if one was consistently faster than the other you would have this > situation. > Was one of them steam powered, or did it have significantly different > network connectivity. > I suppose if one were even minutely faster than the other then it would be > used exclusively. > > Gaz > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > interesting. I did find a couple of things in the various command > references > > and in some TAC docs that indicated your answer is better than mine. > > > > OTOH, that still does not explain why 250 computers in eight different > > offices were all hitting the same DHCP server. The reason I know it to be > > true is that I had different scopes on each of the two servers. For > example > > 192.168.4.50 through 150 on one server and 192.168.4.151 through 250 on > the > > other. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > ""Chris Camplejohn"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Multiple "ip helper-address" on an interface has been supported for a > long > > > time. There is no sequential order per se. The UDP broadcast packet is > > > converted to a unicast and sent to each address listed by a helper. I > > would > > > recommend using a sniffer on the target network to ensure you are > getting > > > both helpered packets. > > > > > > You might be hitting an IOS bug, but a quick scan didn't turn up any > good > > > hits... > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > ""Elijah Savage"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Seeing the other ip helper question made me think of what I was > working > > on > > > > in my lab. On Friday morning I get into work and there was a severity > 1 > > > > ticket where about 800 employees could not log in. We discovered that > > one > > > > of the dhcp servers was down but we have 2 so in theory all should > have > > > > been fine, on all of our routers we have both dhcp servers for ip > > helper. > > > > From reading some place in my long journey I am sure I read that ip > > helper > > > > would take a broadcast and change it to unicast and send traffic to > all > > ip > > > > helper addresses regardless if it is down or not. But in this case > that > > > > did not happen. To get everything back up I actually had to change the > > > > order that I had the ip helper addresses in. The server that was down > I > > > > put it last and put the server that was up first and then everything > > > > started to work. So it seems as if some primary secondary thing is > going > > > > on here. We are running ospf on our backbone with a variety of > equipment > > > > configurations 6500's 5500's 3600's 2600's. All routers has a > different > > > > version of IOS we have not had a chance to bring them all up to the > same > > > > code what is similiar is they all have at least 12.0 on them. I want > to > > > > try and figure this out myself so I started playing with this in the > lab > > > > with 2600's running 12.1(5) IOS and I came across the same exact > thing. > > > > Did this change with IOS 12 or something has anyone else experienced > > this? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45084&t=45045 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
