Well, it looks like that is what's happening. I queried last night while I was doing some other work on their Exchange as they were moving to a new dhcp scope and the consultant onsite was creating 2 dhcp servers, with different ranges, not using the 80/20 config as written in technet. I typically use one dhcp server and don't create more complexity especially on an 80 workstation lan with about 130 total 'ip' devices.
Thanks everyone for the clarity. -----Original Message----- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: DHCP understanding Yep - there is not overflow redundancy for DHCP. It was designed as a single-server process. So, whatever that first server responds with - thats your clients answer, end of story. You're really only supposed to have have a single DHCP server replying for a single broadcast domain. But you can use multiple servers as long as you don't overlap scope address pools - causing IP conflicts. When using a multi-server DHCP setup however, you have to make sure that each server is capable of providing addresses for all potential requests; or you will have clients that are rejected and maybe get stuck in APIPA territory. On Feb 19, 2008 1:17 PM, Benjamin Zachary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was using primary/secondary as an example, but my understanding is that > whichever answers first, that's the answer. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:47 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: DHCP understanding > > > On Feb 19, 2008 12:40 PM, Joe Heaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PCs seem to quit after not being able to get an address from > > the full primary server. > > There's nothing in the protocol about "primary" or "secondary" > servers, or any kind of redundancy. DHCP servers are all peers. > > It's possible for a DHCP server implementation to implement failover > mechanisms themselves, but the clients are not aware of this, to the > best of my knowledge. I don't think MSFT's DHCP implementation does > anything about this, either (short of running a full clustered server > config, I suppose). > > -- Ben > > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ > > > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ > -- ME2 ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
