Re: DHCP Bad address question
From: Phillip Windell (_at_.)
Date: 09/17/04
- Next message: Phillip Windell: "Re: Internet Issues"
- Previous message: mwesley_at_us.ibm.com: "Sharing Issue"
- In reply to: david lazarus: "DHCP Bad address question"
- Next in thread: david lazarus: "Re: DHCP Bad address question"
- Reply: david lazarus: "Re: DHCP Bad address question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:50:21 -0500
"david lazarus" <dlazarus@volante.com.au> wrote in message
news:OsuRY%23FnEHA.1992@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am planning to implement 2 w2k3 DHCP servers for redundancy. I'd like to
> have both servers setup with the same scope, exclusions etc as each other
> and have only 1 of them authorised. The plan being that if the dhcp server
The best way is to have them identical as you say, *except* for the
Exclusions. Both would be fully operational and authorized. The Exclusions
would be arainged so that each server gives out half of the addresses (each
doing a different half of course). Of one goes down you simply delete the
exclusion on the remaining one so it can use all the addresses, when the
first is repaired, return the Exclusion to the way it was. At worse there
might be a very brief "hiccup" if a couple addresses are caught in the
transition, but that should be minor.
This is how I run ours here. I follow the same general principle here with
the DCs, DNS, WINS, and DHCP.
-- Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA] www.wandtv.com
- Next message: Phillip Windell: "Re: Internet Issues"
- Previous message: mwesley_at_us.ibm.com: "Sharing Issue"
- In reply to: david lazarus: "DHCP Bad address question"
- Next in thread: david lazarus: "Re: DHCP Bad address question"
- Reply: david lazarus: "Re: DHCP Bad address question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
