RE: 70-291: DHCP 20/80 rule

Thanks Pete. I will most definitely keep your advice in mind in the field...
I am a big fan of real world knowledge and application.

On this particular question however, I am seeking advice on what strategy
the 70-291 test is going use. I understand that both will work, just not
sure which one they will be hitting me on.

The answer will most likely be multiple choice, so I could probably figure
out which strategy they are looking for by deductive reasoning, but I just
wanted to be sure.

Clarification on the '1 in each subnet' statement: The fault tolerance
situation that I was studying uses the 80/20 rule on 2 dhcp servers, both in
different subnets connected by a 1542 compliant router that passes bootp
packets.


"Pete Jones" wrote:

Slightly confused about the 1 in each subnet, but the rest of it reads like
two different methods to achieve the same result.

If you are allocating out 192.168.1.50-254 with subnet mask of
255.255.255.0, you could either:

Have the scope on Server A (80%) range from 192.168.1.50 to 192.168.1.165,
with Server B (20) range as 192.168.1.166 to 192.168.1.254. No exclusions or
reservations on either server.

The other option is to have Server A and Server B scopes range from
192.168.1.50 to 192.168.1.254, and have the exclusion on Server A be
192.168.1.166 to 192.168.1.254, and the exclusion on Server B be 192.168.1.50
to 192.168.1.165.

Both these methods will work, and the goal is the same: to have two DHCP
servers allocating IPs that a) will not conflict/overlap, (b) will work for
any machine that makes a request, ie it does not matter which server the
client gets the address from.

Personally, I prefer to use exclusions for blocks of IP's that are static,
and alter the scope ranges when balancing DHCP. However, you should learn
both, since I can guarantee you will encounter both methods in the real world.
--
Pete Jones
MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging


"ISApose" wrote:

Hello, thanks in advance.

I have seen 2 different views of the 80/20 rule. One that states to break
up the scope on 2 different DHCP servers (1 in each subnet), and then what
the MS Press 70-291 book states.

It states to use the same scope on both servers, but break up the exclusion
range, 80% and 20%.

I'm sure the MS Press book is the one I want to go with, but just wanted to
confirm.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lost?
    ... your server, although it will send to you - ... I checked with a supervisor at my ISP ... and hopefully I will receive your response. ... again for your generosity :-) ...Pete ...
    (sci.med.prostate.bph)
  • Re: PPC 2003 - Send Mail Problem
    ... Thanks Craig, none of your suggestions are the issue in my case:( ... Pete ... >> messages talks about missing wirless coverage or problem with the server ... >> fine) and I checked the settings several times. ...
    (microsoft.public.pocketpc)
  • Re: Problems in setting display variable for X Windows server
    ... > Servlets not able to access the X server resulting in failure to display ... the current X session) if i export the display as localhost:0, ... When my user 'pete' runs this from within my X session, ...
    (RedHat)
  • Re: Question about debian with HP/Compaq ML350G4
    ... Pete wrote: ... > We are buying a new server for web use and have decided it'll be the ML350 ... To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org ... The all-new My Yahoo! ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: email help....quite urgent
    ... 'Pete ... C', Server: 'mail.btinternet.com', Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '554 ... log in to Talk Talk with your old LineOne email address and use ... some of my valid mails to trash, even when they are in my contacts list :-( ...
    (uk.people.silversurfers)