DHCP Superscope/SuperNet

I have recently inherited a network which is having issues with DHCP
leasing...basically there are 3 IP's left in the Scope. (Event 1020
DHCPServer)

Long story short; the previous IT person setup the DHCP with 3 scopes,
one on each of the 3 remote offices, but with the same subnetting:
192.168.1.x , 255.255.255.192...

HQ = 192.168.1.0
255.255.255.192
Range = 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.62

RO1 = 192.168.1.64
255.255.255.192
Range = 192.168.1.65 - 192.168.1.126

RO2 = 192.168.1.128
255.255.255.192
Range = 192.168.1.129 - 192.168.1.190

Remote Office 2 was removed and closed...HQ is now at maximum IP
leases, with varying warnings of 3-4 ip addresses available or none.

What I need assistance on, is whether or not to setup a Superscope or
SuperNet to handle to greater amount of IP's needed for lease in HQ.

In an attempt to handle this without disrupting the network too much at
this point in time, I created a new Superscope in HQ and gave it an
Extended Scope..so now HQ looks like...

HQ = SuperScope
Scope1 = 192.168.1.0
255.255.255.192
Range = 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.62
Extended Scope = 192.168.1.192
255.255.255.192
Range = 192.168.1.193 - 192.168.1.254

In the Superscope Statistics it shows that I have 2 Scopes, 104
addresses, in use 39, available 65. However I am still getting warnings
that my Scope1 is almost out of addresses.

Now for the questions:
1. Is this just informational warning..to be disregarded?
2. When scope1 finally does fill, will it automatically goto Ext.
Scope?
3. Is this the proper way to extend a scope...do I have the
netmasking/subnetting correct?

Any help or suggestions would be most appreciated.
Thank You

Sorry I may have missed the point of what you were asking but I have a
horrible feeling that there is a whole load of stuff that you are not
considering.

Queue potentially patronising paragraph about ip - apologies, I 'm just
being careful.
You cannot just extend a scope and hope that the computers will talk to
each other. Communication between these subnets has to go through a layer 3
device of some sorts (probably a router). In order to determine what you
best course of action is you need to consider how your networks are
connected to other networks (eg Internet access and intra site
connectivity). I would guess that you will probably want to change the
entire range for your HQ, rather than faffing about with routing between
subnets. The chances are it will be easier in the long run. If you do change
your addresses you will need to alter the configs of any routers firewalls
etc. There is no easy way, and in my experience no one method that is
correct for everyone.

If you have already thought of this stuff, then
1) I would look to move some clients to your new subnet rather than having
one full and one empty.
2) I believe there are ways to just continue straight on into your new range
when you run out, but it really defeats the object of using separate subnets
in the first place - ie. you need to use one collision domain and the old
'router on a stick' configuration. You could do this with MS RRAS but I
can't see the point to be honest.
3) This is the perfect opportunity to use the default networking answer (as
my CCNP tutor said), That depends. I would guess that there is probably a
better way though. The numbers do show a correct subnet whether it works or
not depends on the rest of your network being configured correctly for this
subnet.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ps.com...
> I have recently inherited a network which is having issues with DHCP
> leasing...basically there are 3 IP's left in the Scope. (Event 1020
> DHCPServer)
>
> Long story short; the previous IT person setup the DHCP with 3 scopes,
> one on each of the 3 remote offices, but with the same subnetting:
> 192.168.1.x , 255.255.255.192...
>
> HQ = 192.168.1.0
> 255.255.255.192
> Range = 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.62
>
> RO1 = 192.168.1.64
> 255.255.255.192
> Range = 192.168.1.65 - 192.168.1.126
>
> RO2 = 192.168.1.128
> 255.255.255.192
> Range = 192.168.1.129 - 192.168.1.190
>
> Remote Office 2 was removed and closed...HQ is now at maximum IP
> leases, with varying warnings of 3-4 ip addresses available or none.
>
> What I need assistance on, is whether or not to setup a Superscope or
> SuperNet to handle to greater amount of IP's needed for lease in HQ.
>
> In an attempt to handle this without disrupting the network too much at
> this point in time, I created a new Superscope in HQ and gave it an
> Extended Scope..so now HQ looks like...
>
> HQ = SuperScope
> Scope1 = 192.168.1.0
> 255.255.255.192
> Range = 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.62
> Extended Scope = 192.168.1.192
> 255.255.255.192
> Range = 192.168.1.193 - 192.168.1.254
>
> In the Superscope Statistics it shows that I have 2 Scopes, 104
> addresses, in use 39, available 65. However I am still getting warnings
> that my Scope1 is almost out of addresses.
>
> Now for the questions:
> 1. Is this just informational warning..to be disregarded?
> 2. When scope1 finally does fill, will it automatically goto Ext.
> Scope?
> 3. Is this the proper way to extend a scope...do I have the
> netmasking/subnetting correct?
>
> Any help or suggestions would be most appreciated.
> Thank You
>

Unless you have a lot of reservations, it seems to me that the easiest thing
to do is rebuild the HQ scope as 192.168.1.0/255.255.255.128, giving you
192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.127 for IPs. This does not appear to be a situation
where superscopes would be useful. I think the default warning starts when
80% of the scope IPs are leased, so I don't know where this is coming from:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...server/reskit/
en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en
-us/w2000Msgs/5154.asp

Doug Sherman
MCSE, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ps.com...
> I have recently inherited a network which is having issues with DHCP
> leasing...basically there are 3 IP's left in the Scope. (Event 1020
> DHCPServer)
>
> Long story short; the previous IT person setup the DHCP with 3 scopes,
> one on each of the 3 remote offices, but with the same subnetting:
> 192.168.1.x , 255.255.255.192...
>
> HQ = 192.168.1.0
> 255.255.255.192
> Range = 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.62
>
> RO1 = 192.168.1.64
> 255.255.255.192
> Range = 192.168.1.65 - 192.168.1.126
>
> RO2 = 192.168.1.128
> 255.255.255.192
> Range = 192.168.1.129 - 192.168.1.190
>
> Remote Office 2 was removed and closed...HQ is now at maximum IP
> leases, with varying warnings of 3-4 ip addresses available or none.
>
> What I need assistance on, is whether or not to setup a Superscope or
> SuperNet to handle to greater amount of IP's needed for lease in HQ.
>
> In an attempt to handle this without disrupting the network too much at
> this point in time, I created a new Superscope in HQ and gave it an
> Extended Scope..so now HQ looks like...
>
> HQ = SuperScope
> Scope1 = 192.168.1.0
> 255.255.255.192
> Range = 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.62
> Extended Scope = 192.168.1.192
> 255.255.255.192
> Range = 192.168.1.193 - 192.168.1.254
>
> In the Superscope Statistics it shows that I have 2 Scopes, 104
> addresses, in use 39, available 65. However I am still getting warnings
> that my Scope1 is almost out of addresses.
>
> Now for the questions:
> 1. Is this just informational warning..to be disregarded?
> 2. When scope1 finally does fill, will it automatically goto Ext.
> Scope?
> 3. Is this the proper way to extend a scope...do I have the
> netmasking/subnetting correct?
>
> Any help or suggestions would be most appreciated.
> Thank You
>

Thank you for the quick reply.

To be honest I really do want to remove the current scopes and rebuild
this entire architecture, one that will meet thier needs now and for
years to come, but was trying to keep impact down, thus the inquiry
into Extended scopes.

I guess the easiest way would be to remove the RO's current scope,
remove the superscope and "fix" HQ's to be 255.255.255.128 as
suggested, then do the same for the "new scope" for the remote office.

Maybe I'll wait till Xmas, when they shutdown for about 4days, and just
take down the whole network and build it the way its supposed to
be....they had never factored in all the network periphals that were
going to be added to the network, nor the growth of the company.

Anyhow, thanks again for the help and suggestions.