hmmm, looks like I was incorrect according to this... >From "Lease Renewals" http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc958919.aspx
If the client is unable to communicate with its original DHCP server, the client waits until 87.5 percent of its lease time elapses. Then the client enters a rebinding state, broadcasting (with a maximum of three retries at 4, 8, and 16 seconds) a DHCPDiscover message to any available DHCP server to update its current IP address lease. Jeff On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Jeff Bunting <[email protected]> wrote: > At half lease time, the client should request an address *renewal*. The > renewal request would be sent to the DHCP server that provided the original > lease, it is not broadcast to DHCPServer2. > > IIRC, it will not broadcast again until the lease actually expires. > (someone will jump in to correct me if I'm wrong) > > Jeff > > > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Jim Dandy <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I've read some about the DHCP 80-20 rule but I'm not sure I really >> understand it. Here are two questions. >> >> 1) Why 80-20? Why not 50-50? If one server fails, wouldn't it be >> better for the other server to have a larger range from which to >> distribute addresses? >> >> 2) Let's say everything is working perfectly and both DHCP servers are >> up. Client1 requests an address and receives address 192.168.0.1 from >> DHCPServer1. Time passes until half of the lease time has expired so >> Client1 requests an address. This time DHCPServer2 is a little faster >> and provides address 192.168.0.129. DHCPserver1 doesn't know that a >> different address has been assigned to Client1 so Client1 has an active >> lease on both DHCP servers although only one of the addresses is >> functional. (Perhaps that's not what would happen?) What happens to >> DNS? Are there now two entries in DNS (192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.129) >> for Client1? For the purpose of answering this question, please assume >> that I have Active Directory Integrated DNS on Server 2003 and DHCP on >> Windows Server 2008. >> >> Thanks for your help. >> >> Curt Finley >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
