Non-contiguous subnets in W2K3 DHCP

Hello,

I have a LAN setup like this:

W2K3 DHCP:
- scope 1 : 192.168.100.0/24
- scope 2 : 192.168.200.0/24 (--> this is new IP subnet)
- combined them in a superscope

Cisco 1712:
- int FastEthernet0 : 192.168.100.1 (primary) and 192.168.200.1
(secondary)
- ip helper-address : 255.255.255.255 (to look for DHCP server by
broadcast)

The problem is that once the scope 1 is fully occupied, new clients
still do not get IP address from the scope 2.

I have tried to change the 'ip helper-address' setting in the router
to the W2K3 DHCP server's IP address but it still don't work. I tried
also to put command 'ip dhcp-server' to point to the W2K3 DHCP server,
still do not work.

I have noticed that the clients are always getting IP addresses from
whatever subnet that was assigned as the primary IP in the router LAN
interface.

What did I miss?

"Dev 8008" <dev8008-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello,
>
> I have a LAN setup like this:
>
> W2K3 DHCP:
> - scope 1 : 192.168.100.0/24
> - scope 2 : 192.168.200.0/24 (--> this is new IP subnet)
> - combined them in a superscope

Let me guess,...without going any futher. Clients aren't getting the IP
config you expected, right?

Get rid of the Superscope.
Every subnet gets it own, independent, separate, distinct, scope.
Superscopes are for Multi-nets,...you don't have a Multi-net,....almost
nobody ever does anymore,...those were mostly made obsolete by the invention
of VLANing. MS could remove the whole Superscope feature from the DHCP
Server and life would go on.

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed are my own (as annoying as they are), and not those of
my employer or anyone else associated with me.
-----------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:32:18 -0600, "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote:

>"Dev 8008" <dev8008-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a LAN setup like this:
>>
>> W2K3 DHCP:
>> - scope 1 : 192.168.100.0/24
>> - scope 2 : 192.168.200.0/24 (--> this is new IP subnet)
>> - combined them in a superscope
>
>Let me guess,...without going any futher. Clients aren't getting the IP
>config you expected, right?
>
>Get rid of the Superscope.
>Every subnet gets it own, independent, separate, distinct, scope.
>Superscopes are for Multi-nets,...you don't have a Multi-net,....almost
>nobody ever does anymore,...those were mostly made obsolete by the invention
>of VLANing. MS could remove the whole Superscope feature from the DHCP
>Server and life would go on.

Yes, clients aren't getting IP address from the new subnet (scope 2).

What is multinets?

Unfortunately my LAN switches do not support VLAN. I was under
impression that this setup would be possible.

Any idea?

Rgds,

"Dev 8008" <dev8008-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>Every subnet gets it own, independent, separate, distinct, scope.
>>Superscopes are for Multi-nets,...you don't have a Multi-net,....almost
>>nobody ever does anymore,...those were mostly made obsolete by the
>>invention
>>of VLANing. MS could remove the whole Superscope feature from the DHCP
>>Server and life would go on.
>
> Yes, clients aren't getting IP address from the new subnet (scope 2).
>
> What is multinets?

It's a long story,..a long nasty ugly story. Stay away from it :-)
It is the process of running two network IP Segments over the same "wire".

> Unfortunately my LAN switches do not support VLAN. I was under
> impression that this setup would be possible.

All I am saying is that you keep the two segments on separate Wires, I'm not
telling you to create VLANs. On the DHCP you want just straight normal
separate distict scopes of each IP segment and set the LAN Router to forward
DHCP Queries to the DHCP Server. It is more dependable to point it directly
at the DHCP Server rather than depend on broadcasts.

--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed are my own (as annoying as they are), and not those of
my employer or anyone else associated with me.
-----------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I don't know if it is help you

But you use a routing protocol like OSPF to maneger the router process
ok.

I think that you forgoten to configurate this protocol with de second
scope.

You configurate in interface but say nothig about configuration
protocol so i think in this possibilite and this it is one point that
you can check esaly.

I hope to help

By Pyna_BR