Re: Where best to place DHCP

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Scott Perry, Aug 27, 2008.

  1. Scott Perry

    Scott Perry Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Scott Perry, Aug 27, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Scott Perry

    Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > 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.
     
    , Aug 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Thrill5 wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>> 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.
     
    Andre Wisniewski, Sep 6, 2008
    #3
  4. Thrill5 wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>> 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.
     
    Andre Wisniewski, Sep 6, 2008
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?SGVpbkQ=?=

    Wireless DHCP clients cannot obtain an IP address from the DHCP se

    =?Utf-8?B?SGVpbkQ=?=, Jan 8, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,883
    =?Utf-8?B?SGVpbkQ=?=
    Jan 8, 2006
  2. Ingo Hauf

    if Active Directory no DHCP? or: Where ist my DHCP

    Ingo Hauf, Oct 17, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    554
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Oct 18, 2003
  3. Arawak
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    782
    Toan Le
    Feb 5, 2004
  4. Fayza
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    12,955
    Dan Shea
    May 12, 2004
  5. Vimokh
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    5,935
    Vimokh
    Sep 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page