[UFO Chicago] dhcp noob question

[Christopher D. Heer]

On Sun, September 30, 2007 8:58 am, Jesse Becker wrote:

> --- "Christopher D. Heer" <cheer at heerfamily.net> wrote:

>> Is there any reason I can't set this up on a second
>> server?  The second
>> would have a different "pool" for dynamics, but the same
>> list of static
>> DHCP assignments.  I would think that PCs would accept an
>> assignment from
>> whichever server responded first.  Any downfalls that I'm
>> missing?  I
>> looked into the DHCP redundancy feature, but that seems
>> mainly to
>> synchronize dynamic assignments.

> So basically, server Alpha would handle all of the static
> DHCP assignments, and server Beta would deal with dynamic
> assignments?

No -- I want both server Alpha and server Beta to handle the static DHCP
assignments.  Server Alpha and server Beta would also handle dynamics, but
in order to avoid conflicts, each would have a different "pool" of IPs to
use for static assignments.  It's purely for redundancy -- if server Alpha
goes down, I still want people to be able to get DHCP addresses, either
static or dynamic.

So let's say I have two laptops.  Laptop "1" has a wifi MAC address of
01:23:45:67:89:00 and laptop "2" has a wifi MAC address of
23:45:67:89:0A:01.  Let's further say that I'm using 10.1.1.0/24 for my
home net.

Server A's DHCP table would have a static assignment of 10.1.1.10 mapped
to 01:23:45:67:89:00, a static assignment of 10.1.1.11 mapped to
23:45:67:89:0A:01, and a dynamic pool of 10.1.1.50-10.1.1.99.

Server B's DHCP table would have a static assignment of 10.1.1.10 mapped
to 01:23:45:67:89:00, a static assignment of 10.1.1.11 mapped to
23:45:67:89:0A:01, and a dynamic pool of 10.1.1.100-10.1.1.149.

Make sense?
-- 
  Christopher D. Heer -- cheer at heerfamily.net
  http://chrisheer.wordpress.com (blog)