RE: DHCP Redundancy
- From: "Eshprof" <Eshprof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 05:50:13 -0700
Gordanah,
As far as the DHCP server owning the record, by default the client updates
DNS correct? So the issue of ownership wouldn't really come into play would
it unless the DHCP server updated the DNS server for the client? Am I right
on that?
Eshprof
"Eshprof" wrote:
> thank you.
>
> "gordonah" wrote:
>
> > Eshprof
> >
> > activating the scopes for failed server on the backup server would result in
> > duplicate IP addresses being issued, as there would be no record of what have
> > been leased. You can get around this by ensuring that addresses for new
> > leases are pinged before being given out ("Conflict detection attempts" in
> > Properties of DHCP server), but this is a server wide settings and does add
> > an additional network and server overhead. Will work though.
> >
> > The specifics regarding DNS depend on your environment, but if the DHCP
> > servers are set to update DNS, then it will be the owner of the DNS records
> > (for that A record). This can result in problems with a different DHCP server
> > trying to update it. This is a known 'issue' and affects mobility as well as
> > DR considerations, and can be mitigated by making the DHCP servers members of
> > the DNSUpdatesProxy group. This allows the records to be updated, but
> > introduces a security hole (I thinki it works by relaxing/removing
> > permissions on the records).
> >
> > Gordon
> >
> >
> > "Eshprof" wrote:
> >
> > > I was looking for some input on the subject of DHCP redundancy.
> > >
> > > I know about the 50/50 Failover the 80/20 Failover and the 100/100 Failover
> > > and have been considering them for our failover plan, but I was wondering
> > > about this idea...
> > >
> > > We have at least 100 scope ranges for our network and I was thinking that
> > > each DHCP server would each have the 100 scopes, but that only 50% of the
> > > scopes would be activated and the other half not. 50 activated on one and 50
> > > activated on the other. Together they'd make up the 100. If one machine
> > > failed, all the sys admin would have to do is activate the scopes on the
> > > other DHCP server which brings it back to 100 activated scopes. We could
> > > then rebuild the other machine and activate/deactivate the scopes as it was
> > > before.
> > >
> > > Our VLANs are our relay agents and are pointing to both DHCP addresses.
> > >
> > > The negative that I see on this is that this would require manual
> > > intervention. Are there other issues I'm just not seeing? Will this affect
> > > DNS?
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Eshprof
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DHCP Redundancy
- From: ptwilliams
- Re: DHCP Redundancy
- Prev by Date: Re: Find out which port is being used for LDAP?
- Next by Date: Domain Controllers OU
- Previous by thread: DLL error
- Next by thread: Re: DHCP Redundancy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
