Re: DHCP configuration of superscopes
From: I.is.Who.I.am (iiswhoiam_at_mymailbox.org)
Date: 06/18/04
- Next message: Jeff Mackeny: "Re: Migrate to 2003"
- Previous message: MJC: "ODD DNS ISSUE: Please Help"
- In reply to: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: DHCP configuration of superscopes"
- Next in thread: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: DHCP configuration of superscopes"
- Reply: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: DHCP configuration of superscopes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:43:59 -0700
> > Basically it is two hubs connected by fiber because of the distance,
> > it makes both offices on the same LAN. Here is the basic setup in
> > order to clarify things.
> >
> > 1.a.local (DC/DHCP/DNS/WINS/AD Primary root server/Win2003) Static IP
> > xxx.xxx.0.7
> > 2.a.local(DC - Fileserver setup as DC/Win2003) Static IP xxx.xxx.0.2
> > 3.a.local(Stand alone server/Win2003) Static IPs on 1st NIC
> > xxx.xxx.0.1 xxx.xxx.2.1 On second NIC DHCP given by DSL WAN Router
> > connected to ISP's DSL Modem xxx.xxx.1.1 with ICS enabled.
> >
> > 1.b.local(DC/DHCP/WINS/AD Primary server for b.local Domain/Win200)
> > Static IP xxx.xxx.2.7
> > 2.b.local(DC - Fileserver setup as DC/Win2000) Static IP xxx.xxx.2.3
> >
> > Both 1.a.local and 1.b.local have DHCP with superscopes enabled. The
> > scopes on both machines do not overlap but follow the 80/20 rule.
> >
> > The problem is when a machine, lets say, 5.a.local boots it gets its
> > IP from
> > 1.a.local it is always a xxx.xxx.0.xxx address. If I do an IPCONFIG
> > /release /renew on 5.a.local then 1.b.local answers with a
> > xxx.xxx.2.xxx address always. If I repeat the IPCONFIG /release
> > /renew then 1.a.local will then answer with a xxx.xxx.0.xxx address.
> > Mind you the domain name is in both DHCP servers correctly, that is
> > a.local and b.local respectively. The superscope only gives out the
> > IPs for the domain of the answering server and never the domain the
> > computer is joined to.
> >
> > So to get the superscope to work properly is it required to have 2
> > NICs or just 2 IPs or do I have to configure the clients by class or
> > something else?
> >
> > Thanks again for your time
>
>
> Interesting arrangement. Honestly I've never seen it done this way.
>
> As for 3.a.local, I wouldn't use ICS. That will definitely throw a wrench
> into what you;re doing with DHCP. It creates its own mini DHCP service
with
> an ip range of 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.254 randomly handed out on the
> internal NIC. If DHCP or DNS were to be running on this machine, yhou
would
> get nathlp errors in the event viewer.
>
> A superscope is used to combine multiple subnets with one NIC. Since your
> two "subnets" (misnamed, of course) are connected by a simple hub (or
> switch), then we can safely say that these two segments are actually "one"
> network or segment, so it really only needs one NIC. Make sense? As for
the
> IP of the DHCP server, I would set it to an IP on the respective "subnet"
> (loosely put) and set the mask to encompass both "subnets" so they
"appear"
> to be one.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ace
>
Forgive my ignorance but I do not understand the last sentence fully, so let
me
try this example and see if I have it right.
With a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0
1.a.local - DHCP/DNS/WINS/AD - IP of 192.168.3.5 and 192.168.2.2
1.b.local - DHCP/DNS/WINS/AD - IP of 192.168.2.5 and 192.168.3.2
3.a.local - Stand Alone w/ICS - IP of 192.168.3.1 and 192.168.2.1 internal
(one IP for each subnet which is the gateway for each subnet on the client
machines)
and 192.168.1.1 external understanding your recommendation against ICS, this
is
just for quick config until ICS is disabled. Realize I changed the IPs for
a.local from 0.xxx to 2.xxx to avoid conflict with ICS.
If I used each DHCP server as a backup to the other (80/20 rule) and used
superscopes
for this purpose, does each server require one or two IPs?
- Next message: Jeff Mackeny: "Re: Migrate to 2003"
- Previous message: MJC: "ODD DNS ISSUE: Please Help"
- In reply to: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: DHCP configuration of superscopes"
- Next in thread: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: DHCP configuration of superscopes"
- Reply: Ace Fekay [MVP]: "Re: DHCP configuration of superscopes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|