I have a Windows 2003 network with about 50 client stations. I have
two servers running DHCP:

server01 has a scope of 192.168.2.10-x.x.x.60
server02 has a scope of 192.168.2.61-x.x.x.115

I do very little on the network as far as adding new stations,
installing NICs, etc.

My question: Is this a good way to setup DHCP redundancy or am I
missing something?

Hello Nick,

This is ok, but think also about redundant DNS server (Active directory integrated
zones) and also have more then one global catalog server.

Best regards

Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

> I have a Windows 2003 network with about 50 client stations. I have
> two servers running DHCP:
>
> server01 has a scope of 192.168.2.10-x.x.x.60
> server02 has a scope of 192.168.2.61-x.x.x.115
> I do very little on the network as far as adding new stations,
> installing NICs, etc.
>
> My question: Is this a good way to setup DHCP redundancy or am I
> missing something?
>

I use the full range in both scopes and then use Exclusions to control what
is given out.


--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

"nick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3889e930-a0fd-45c9-8e0a-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have a Windows 2003 network with about 50 client stations. I have
> two servers running DHCP:
>
> server01 has a scope of 192.168.2.10-x.x.x.60
> server02 has a scope of 192.168.2.61-x.x.x.115
>
> I do very little on the network as far as adding new stations,
> installing NICs, etc.
>
> My question: Is this a good way to setup DHCP redundancy or am I
> missing something?

On Nov 28, 3:01 pm, "Phillip Windell" <philwind...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I use the full range in both scopes and then use Exclusions to control what
> is given out.
>
> --
> Phillip Windellwww.wandtv.com
>
> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> "nick" <cipher7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3889e930-a0fd-45c9-8e0a-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
> >I have a Windows 2003 network with about 50 client stations. I have
> > two servers running DHCP:
>
> > server01 has a scope of 192.168.2.10-x.x.x.60
> > server02 has a scope of 192.168.2.61-x.x.x.115
>
> > I do very little on the network as far as adding new stations,
> > installing NICs, etc.
>
> > My question: Is this a good way to setup DHCP redundancy or am I
> > missing something?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Full range and then use exclusions? Can their be conflicts between the
two? Are the lease expirations different?

Hello Nick,

The lease expiration is configured for the complete scope. If one DHCP server
is down and you delete then the exclusion range, the clients will get new
addresses form the other server if they lease will be renewed.

Best regards

Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

> On Nov 28, 3:01 pm, "Phillip Windell" <philwind...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I use the full range in both scopes and then use Exclusions to
>> control what is given out.
>>
>> --
>> Phillip Windellwww.wandtv.com
>> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or
>> Microsoft, or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "nick" <cipher7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3889e930-a0fd-45c9-8e0a-(E-Mail Removed)
>> m...
>>
>>> I have a Windows 2003 network with about 50 client stations. I have
>>> two servers running DHCP:
>>>
>>> server01 has a scope of 192.168.2.10-x.x.x.60
>>> server02 has a scope of 192.168.2.61-x.x.x.115
>>> I do very little on the network as far as adding new stations,
>>> installing NICs, etc.
>>>
>>> My question: Is this a good way to setup DHCP redundancy or am I
>>> missing something?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>>
> Full range and then use exclusions? Can their be conflicts between the
> two? Are the lease expirations different?
>

What you do is to assign the same range to both servers, then exclude
non-overlapping ranges between the two. For example, set up both servers to
assign addresses in the 192.168.0.x range, then on the first server exclude
192.168.0.1-127 and on the second server exclude 192.168.0.128-254 so that
no address can be given out by both servers. In the event one fails the
other will continue to hand out addresses.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (E-Mail Removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"nick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:40946c7b-11c4-4107-8ba8-(E-Mail Removed)...

> Full range and then use exclusions? Can their be conflicts between the
> two? Are the lease expirations different?

"nick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:40946c7b-11c4-4107-8ba8-(E-Mail Removed)...

> Full range and then use exclusions? Can their be conflicts between the
> two? Are the lease expirations different?

No. That is what the Exclusions are for.
I want the Scopes to be fully configured with the full address range and be
identical other than the Exclusions.

If one DHCP fails I can just alter the Exclusions on the remaining one and
it can take over everything.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------
Understanding the ISA 2004 Access Rule Processing
http://www.isaserver.org/articles/IS...cessRules.html

Troubleshooting Client Authentication on Access Rules in ISA Server 2004
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...7/ts_rules.doc

Microsoft Internet Security & Acceleration Server: Partners
http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/partners/default.asp

Microsoft ISA Server Partners: Partner Hardware Solutions
http://www.microsoft.com/forefront/e...epartners.mspx
-----------------------------------------------------

Hi Richard!
Haven't seen ya in a while!

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

"Richard G. Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:0B982580-8F95-45A1-AE76-(E-Mail Removed)...
> What you do is to assign the same range to both servers, then exclude
> non-overlapping ranges between the two. For example, set up both servers
> to assign addresses in the 192.168.0.x range, then on the first server
> exclude 192.168.0.1-127 and on the second server exclude 192.168.0.128-254
> so that no address can be given out by both servers. In the event one
> fails the other will continue to hand out addresses.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (E-Mail Removed)
> * NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "nick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:40946c7b-11c4-4107-8ba8-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> Full range and then use exclusions? Can their be conflicts between the
>> two? Are the lease expirations different?
>

I tend to lurk more than post some days ... :-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (E-Mail Removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Phillip Windell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi Richard!
> Haven't seen ya in a while!