scope with dynamin NIC IP ?

Hi there,

I am trying to superscope 2 networks....

One network is already DHCPed by the LinkSys internet router, the other
network DHCPed by the static network card in the Windows 2003 Server.

The other NIC is dynamic, of course, having been DHCPed by the LinkSys. Can
I include that dynamic NIC in a superscope somehow?

I am trying to get the Server 2003 to act as a router and hook these 2
networks together and have all workstations be able to go out on the
internet by the LinkSys router.....

Thanks,

Gordon

"Gordon J. Rattray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> I am trying to superscope 2 networks....

Why? .....That is not what Superscopes are for.

Use separate distinct "normal" Scopes, ....one for each network. Configure
the "router" to forward DHCP Queries. Everything will take care of itself,
everything will be happy.

> The other NIC is dynamic, of course, having been DHCPed by the LinkSys.
Can
> I include that dynamic NIC in a superscope somehow?

No. Disable the DHCP on the Lynksys box and do not use it for DHCP at all.
Run only one DHCP Server. No superscopes!

--

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

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in
news:e27#(E-Mail Removed):

> "Gordon J. Rattray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> I am trying to superscope 2 networks....
>
> Why? .....That is not what Superscopes are for.
>
> Use separate distinct "normal" Scopes, ....one for each network.
> Configure the "router" to forward DHCP Queries. Everything will take
> care of itself, everything will be happy.
>
>> The other NIC is dynamic, of course, having been DHCPed by the
>> LinkSys.
> Can
>> I include that dynamic NIC in a superscope somehow?
>
> No. Disable the DHCP on the Lynksys box and do not use it for DHCP at
> all. Run only one DHCP Server. No superscopes!
>

I agree with Phillip's responses.

Superscopes are used only when you want to use two or more different IP
address ranges on one physical subnet, which is not your configuration.
Each of your subnets should have a different IP address range.

As per Phillip's suggestion, it's a good idea to have just one DHCP server
unless you have a really large network. However DHCP server messages are
broadcast messages and will not traverse routers unless you enable the
forwarding of DHCP messages on the router. Thus you need to configure a
DHCP relay agent or forwarder on any routers you have. Then on the DHCP
server configure IP address ranges for each subnet.

Also, if you are going to use the Windows Server 2003 machine as a router,
you need to install and configure Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS).
You can do so by using the Windows Components Wizard in Add/Remove
Programs. RRAS includes a DHCP Relay Agent component, so make sure you
configure that to forward DHCP messages between subnets. There are more
detailed explanations of these topics and procedures that show how to
configure these items in the DHCP and RRAS Help on your computer.

--
James McIllece, Microsoft

Please do not send email directly to this alias. This is my online account
name for newsgroup participation only.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Hi Phillip,

Okay, what it is is that the server is up running Monday to Friday. On
weekends it is off, hence the need for the other computers in the other
offices to use the LinkSys router by DHCP.

That's why I need to have one NIC on the Server2003 router as dynamic and
the other static....

While I was wrong in assuming a superscope would fix this.... how do I go
about ensuring both subnets of Static 192.0.0.0 and DHCPed 193.0.0.0 see
each other?

Gordon





"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:e27%(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Gordon J. Rattray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> I am trying to superscope 2 networks....
>
> Why? .....That is not what Superscopes are for.
>
> Use separate distinct "normal" Scopes, ....one for each network.
> Configure
> the "router" to forward DHCP Queries. Everything will take care of itself,
> everything will be happy.
>
>> The other NIC is dynamic, of course, having been DHCPed by the LinkSys.
> Can
>> I include that dynamic NIC in a superscope somehow?
>
> No. Disable the DHCP on the Lynksys box and do not use it for DHCP at
> all.
> Run only one DHCP Server. No superscopes!
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
>

"Gordon J. Rattray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Okay, what it is is that the server is up running Monday to Friday. On
> weekends it is off, hence the need for the other computers in the other
> offices to use the LinkSys router by DHCP.

A DHCP box must be running 24/7. If that box isn't, you'll have to use a
different box, or forget running a "windows" DHCP and stay with the DHCP
from the LinkSys box.

> That's why I need to have one NIC on the Server2003 router as dynamic and
> the other static....

Server's should always have all nics run static addresses. There is nothing
"forcing" you to use dynamic addressing on the server because the Internet
connection is being "NAT'ed" by the Linksys box and not the Server itself.

> While I was wrong in assuming a superscope would fix this.... how do I go
> about ensuring both subnets of Static 192.0.0.0 and DHCPed 193.0.0.0 see

That is soley the job of the LAN Router (a "real' router, not an Internet
NAT Device like the LinkSys box). DHCP has no role at all in this aspect of
it. It is the job of a LAN Router to interlink and route between different
networks or subnets on a LAN.

I hope the 193.0.0.0 is a typo, because that falls outside the range of the
RFC Private Address Blocks that are used for private Networks. 193.0.0.0 is
a Publicly assigned, publicly routable, addresses set and if you use
193.0.0.0 you must actually own those addresses so that you don't cause
address conflicts with whoever really does own them.


--

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

Hi Phillip,

No, not a type, but following the IANA specs "Addresses within this
block should not appear on the public Internet".....so as long as I have it
away from the internet, I am in the clear?

Gordon



"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Gordon J. Rattray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Okay, what it is is that the server is up running Monday to Friday. On
>> weekends it is off, hence the need for the other computers in the other
>> offices to use the LinkSys router by DHCP.
>
> A DHCP box must be running 24/7. If that box isn't, you'll have to use a
> different box, or forget running a "windows" DHCP and stay with the DHCP
> from the LinkSys box.
>
>> That's why I need to have one NIC on the Server2003 router as dynamic and
>> the other static....
>
> Server's should always have all nics run static addresses. There is
> nothing
> "forcing" you to use dynamic addressing on the server because the Internet
> connection is being "NAT'ed" by the Linksys box and not the Server itself.
>
>> While I was wrong in assuming a superscope would fix this.... how do I go
>> about ensuring both subnets of Static 192.0.0.0 and DHCPed 193.0.0.0
>> see
>
> That is soley the job of the LAN Router (a "real' router, not an Internet
> NAT Device like the LinkSys box). DHCP has no role at all in this aspect
> of
> it. It is the job of a LAN Router to interlink and route between different
> networks or subnets on a LAN.
>
> I hope the 193.0.0.0 is a typo, because that falls outside the range of
> the
> RFC Private Address Blocks that are used for private Networks. 193.0.0.0
> is
> a Publicly assigned, publicly routable, addresses set and if you use
> 193.0.0.0 you must actually own those addresses so that you don't cause
> address conflicts with whoever really does own them.
>
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
>

"Gordon J. Rattray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uP%(E-Mail Removed)...
> No, not a type, but following the IANA specs "Addresses within this
> block should not appear on the public Internet".....so as long as I have
it
> away from the internet, I am in the clear?

Well, you won't cause the actual owner of those addresses any trouble, but
you will cause yourself problems. If you ever try to go to any destination
on the Internet that just happens to begin with 193.* it will be
"unreachable" because your system will wrongly interpret it to be located
"locally" on the LAN and will not even attempt to traverse the Internet.

Here are the RFC Private Ranges:

10.0.0.0 -- 10.255.255.255
172.16.0.0 -- 172.31.255.255
192.168.0.0 -- 192.168.255.255

The 193.* block is not among them.

--

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

Thanks Phillip for your explanation, esp about the part where if one of my
machines went to a public 193.0.0.0 address....

Gordon

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Gordon J. Rattray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:uP%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> No, not a type, but following the IANA specs "Addresses within this
>> block should not appear on the public Internet".....so as long as I have
> it
>> away from the internet, I am in the clear?
>
> Well, you won't cause the actual owner of those addresses any trouble, but
> you will cause yourself problems. If you ever try to go to any destination
> on the Internet that just happens to begin with 193.* it will be
> "unreachable" because your system will wrongly interpret it to be located
> "locally" on the LAN and will not even attempt to traverse the Internet.
>
> Here are the RFC Private Ranges:
>
> 10.0.0.0 -- 10.255.255.255
> 172.16.0.0 -- 172.31.255.255
> 192.168.0.0 -- 192.168.255.255
>
> The 193.* block is not among them.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
>
>
>
>

No problem sir!,..anytime..

--

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

"Gordon J. Rattray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks Phillip for your explanation, esp about the part where if one of my
> machines went to a public 193.0.0.0 address....
>
> Gordon
>
> "Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Gordon J. Rattray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:uP%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> No, not a type, but following the IANA specs "Addresses within this
> >> block should not appear on the public Internet".....so as long as I
have
> > it
> >> away from the internet, I am in the clear?
> >
> > Well, you won't cause the actual owner of those addresses any trouble,
but
> > you will cause yourself problems. If you ever try to go to any
destination
> > on the Internet that just happens to begin with 193.* it will be
> > "unreachable" because your system will wrongly interpret it to be
located
> > "locally" on the LAN and will not even attempt to traverse the Internet.
> >
> > Here are the RFC Private Ranges:
> >
> > 10.0.0.0 -- 10.255.255.255
> > 172.16.0.0 -- 172.31.255.255
> > 192.168.0.0 -- 192.168.255.255
> >
> > The 193.* block is not among them.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> > www.wandtv.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>