Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > Re: Where best to place DHCP

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Where best to place DHCP

 
 
Scott Perry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2008
Let the DHCP continue to run on the single Windows 2003 server and create
multiple DHCP scopes.. Enable DHCP relay from the various routers into each
IP address subnet with the "ip forward-protocol" command on the subnet
facing interface. Now you only have to take care of one DHCP server, not
multiple DHCP servers or multiple DHCP relay servers. Each router could act
as a DHCP server for its connected subnets, but the Windows 2003 server
offers better visibility into the use of the address scope and easier
changes to reservations and scope options.

-----
Scott Perry
Indianapolis, IN
-----

"skymax_taf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello all. In the process of reworking our network. In the past I have
> always placed the DHCP server on the switch controlling that subnet. I
> have preferred it there because if the server goes down (which does not
> happen often), then DHCP is not affected. I also consider DHCP more of a
> network function that a server function. I have personnel here putting up
> the argument that it would be best to place the DHCP on our Win/3k servers
> and if necessary use DHCP relay either on servers on that subnet or in the
> router.
>
> There again I have a problem with placing extra load on a server or
> router. I generally have designed/laidout networks keeping them simple
> and allowing an item to function in the manner it was designed to. What I
> am saying I try to keep networking functions on networking devices
> allowing my servers to function serving the requests of users.
>
> But as I started this long-winded question, I have "more certified"
> personnel here now that insist on having DHCP on the servers.
> Particularly since Win/3k DHCP can talk to the integrated-DNS server.
> Just wanted to "hear" from others on their view of this matter.
>
> Thanks



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mrozman@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2008
On Aug 27, 2:06*pm, "Scott Perry" <scott.perry@somecompany> wrote:
> Let the DHCP continue to run on the single Windows 2003 server and create
> multiple DHCP scopes.. *Enable DHCP relay from the various routers into each
> IP address subnet with the "ip forward-protocol" command on the subnet
> facing interface. *Now you only have to take care of one DHCP server, not
> multiple DHCP servers or multiple DHCP relay servers. *Each router could act
> as a DHCP server for its connected subnets, but the Windows 2003 server
> offers better visibility into the use of the address scope and easier
> changes to reservations and scope options.
>
> -----
> Scott Perry
> Indianapolis, IN
> -----
>
> "skymax_taf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > Hello all. *In the process of reworking our network. *In the past I have
> > always placed the DHCP server on the switch controlling that subnet. *I
> > have preferred it there because if the server goes down (which does not
> > happen often), then DHCP is not affected. *I also consider DHCP more of a
> > network function that a server function. *I have personnel here putting up
> > the argument that it would be best to place the DHCP on our Win/3k servers
> > and if necessary use DHCP relay either on servers on that subnet or in the
> > router.

>
> > There again I have a problem with placing extra load on a server or
> > router. *I generally have designed/laidout networks keeping them simple
> > and allowing an item to function in the manner it was designed to. *What I
> > am saying I try to keep networking functions on networking devices
> > allowing my servers to function serving the requests of users.

>
> > But as I started this long-winded question, I have "more certified"
> > personnel here now that insist on having DHCP on the servers.
> > Particularly since Win/3k DHCP can talk to the integrated-DNS server.
> > Just wanted to "hear" from others on their view of this matter.

>
> > Thanks


It's important to know how many sites we're talking as, one server in
a fairly large environment could also be a single point of failure.
You may need to split up the load on several servers to develop a more
fortified plan. It's important though in a windows network to let
DHCP and DNS co-exist on the Win2k3 boxes. It will facilitate both
processes if you do for a variety of reasons, namely dynamic dns,
especially if you're not running WINS.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andre Wisniewski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2008
Thrill5 wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Aug 27, 2:06 pm, "Scott Perry" <scott.perry@somecompany> wrote:
>> Let the DHCP continue to run on the single Windows 2003 server and create
>> multiple DHCP scopes.. Enable DHCP relay from the various routers into
>> each
>> IP address subnet with the "ip forward-protocol" command on the subnet
>> facing interface. Now you only have to take care of one DHCP server, not
>> multiple DHCP servers or multiple DHCP relay servers. Each router could
>> act
>> as a DHCP server for its connected subnets, but the Windows 2003 server
>> offers better visibility into the use of the address scope and easier
>> changes to reservations and scope options.
>>
>> -----
>> Scott Perry
>> Indianapolis, IN
>> -----
>>
>> "skymax_taf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> Hello all. In the process of reworking our network. In the past I have
>>> always placed the DHCP server on the switch controlling that subnet. I
>>> have preferred it there because if the server goes down (which does not
>>> happen often), then DHCP is not affected. I also consider DHCP more of a
>>> network function that a server function. I have personnel here putting
>>> up
>>> the argument that it would be best to place the DHCP on our Win/3k
>>> servers
>>> and if necessary use DHCP relay either on servers on that subnet or in
>>> the
>>> router.
>>> There again I have a problem with placing extra load on a server or
>>> router. I generally have designed/laidout networks keeping them simple
>>> and allowing an item to function in the manner it was designed to. What
>>> I
>>> am saying I try to keep networking functions on networking devices
>>> allowing my servers to function serving the requests of users.
>>> But as I started this long-winded question, I have "more certified"
>>> personnel here now that insist on having DHCP on the servers.
>>> Particularly since Win/3k DHCP can talk to the integrated-DNS server.
>>> Just wanted to "hear" from others on their view of this matter.
>>> Thanks

>
>> It's important to know how many sites we're talking as, one server in
>> a fairly large environment could also be a single point of failure.
>> You may need to split up the load on several servers to develop a more
>> fortified plan. It's important though in a windows network to let
>> DHCP and DNS co-exist on the Win2k3 boxes. It will facilitate both
>> processes if you do for a variety of reasons, namely dynamic dns,
>> especially if you're not running WINS.

>
> DHCP is not one of those things that when it goes down your network is down.
> You have DAYS to get a broken DHCP server up and running before it will be a
> significant problem. Workstations renew their lease after half the lease
> time has expired, so if you have a 14 day lease, the workstation will renew
> the IP address after 7 days. When a Windows workstation reboots, if the
> DHCP server is unavailable it will use the last address (and DHCP options)
> that it last received, iff the lease is not expired.
>
> It is always better to centralize services like DHCP because if you need to
> change any of your DHCP options, you have only one place to change them.
> If you want to be able to see what addresses are in use on a particular
> switch, enable DHCP snooping on the switch. The bigger your network, the
> more uniform and simpler you want your network.
>
> If you want redundant DHCP services without having to use split scopes,
> their are several vendors that have redundant DHCP server products.
>
>

Thrill5 explained it very well. Nevertheless i prefer running DHCP service on
routers because of their stability advantages and their centralized placements.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andre Wisniewski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2008
Thrill5 wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Aug 27, 2:06 pm, "Scott Perry" <scott.perry@somecompany> wrote:
>> Let the DHCP continue to run on the single Windows 2003 server and create
>> multiple DHCP scopes.. Enable DHCP relay from the various routers into
>> each
>> IP address subnet with the "ip forward-protocol" command on the subnet
>> facing interface. Now you only have to take care of one DHCP server, not
>> multiple DHCP servers or multiple DHCP relay servers. Each router could
>> act
>> as a DHCP server for its connected subnets, but the Windows 2003 server
>> offers better visibility into the use of the address scope and easier
>> changes to reservations and scope options.
>>
>> -----
>> Scott Perry
>> Indianapolis, IN
>> -----
>>
>> "skymax_taf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> Hello all. In the process of reworking our network. In the past I have
>>> always placed the DHCP server on the switch controlling that subnet. I
>>> have preferred it there because if the server goes down (which does not
>>> happen often), then DHCP is not affected. I also consider DHCP more of a
>>> network function that a server function. I have personnel here putting
>>> up
>>> the argument that it would be best to place the DHCP on our Win/3k
>>> servers
>>> and if necessary use DHCP relay either on servers on that subnet or in
>>> the
>>> router.
>>> There again I have a problem with placing extra load on a server or
>>> router. I generally have designed/laidout networks keeping them simple
>>> and allowing an item to function in the manner it was designed to. What
>>> I
>>> am saying I try to keep networking functions on networking devices
>>> allowing my servers to function serving the requests of users.
>>> But as I started this long-winded question, I have "more certified"
>>> personnel here now that insist on having DHCP on the servers.
>>> Particularly since Win/3k DHCP can talk to the integrated-DNS server.
>>> Just wanted to "hear" from others on their view of this matter.
>>> Thanks

>
>> It's important to know how many sites we're talking as, one server in
>> a fairly large environment could also be a single point of failure.
>> You may need to split up the load on several servers to develop a more
>> fortified plan. It's important though in a windows network to let
>> DHCP and DNS co-exist on the Win2k3 boxes. It will facilitate both
>> processes if you do for a variety of reasons, namely dynamic dns,
>> especially if you're not running WINS.

>
> DHCP is not one of those things that when it goes down your network is down.
> You have DAYS to get a broken DHCP server up and running before it will be a
> significant problem. Workstations renew their lease after half the lease
> time has expired, so if you have a 14 day lease, the workstation will renew
> the IP address after 7 days. When a Windows workstation reboots, if the
> DHCP server is unavailable it will use the last address (and DHCP options)
> that it last received, iff the lease is not expired.
>
> It is always better to centralize services like DHCP because if you need to
> change any of your DHCP options, you have only one place to change them.
> If you want to be able to see what addresses are in use on a particular
> switch, enable DHCP snooping on the switch. The bigger your network, the
> more uniform and simpler you want your network.
>
> If you want redundant DHCP services without having to use split scopes,
> their are several vendors that have redundant DHCP server products.
>
>

Thrill5 explained it very well. Nevertheless i prefer running DHCP service on
routers because of their stability advantages and their centralized placements.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need help setting up a wireless DHCP behind a wired non-DHCP network? sonicgravy Hardware 0 11-13-2006 07:45 PM
Dhcp Relay Agent And Acl On Sw 3750, DHCP Relay Agent and ACL on Sw 3750 Vimokh Cisco 3 09-06-2006 02:16 AM
Wireless DHCP clients cannot obtain an IP address from the DHCP se =?Utf-8?B?SGVpbkQ=?= Wireless Networking 0 01-08-2006 03:41 PM
run > ipconfig > net stop dhcp then > net start dhcp Fayza Computer Support 3 05-12-2004 07:10 PM
if Active Directory no DHCP? or: Where ist my DHCP Ingo Hauf Computer Support 2 10-18-2003 02:25 PM



Advertisments