|
|
| Tech Ranger 2004-01-19, 9:00 am |
| Do they serve any useful purpose? Is is a joke? | |
| jeff_j_black 2004-01-19, 3:49 pm |
| One thought off the top of my head:
Say your original scope does not have enough addresses and you want to add additional addresses via another scope without disrupting existing client connectivity?
Just a thought off the cuff... | |
| Tarzanboy 2004-01-19, 3:55 pm |
| Well, you essentially have 3 options with DHCP:
1. A DHCP server on each subnet.
2. A DHCP server with multiple independant scopes, one for each subnet.
3. A DHCP server with a superscope encompassing each subnet.
+ A superscope has less administrative headache than multiple scopes or individual servers on each subnet.
+ A superscope is a lot less expensive than a WinNT/2k/2k3 DHCP server on each subnet.
Cheers,
TB | |
| aznluvsmc 2004-01-19, 4:09 pm |
| Another note to keep in mind. A superscope will not necessarily assign IP addresses considered local to the subnet therefore preventing any network communication between hosts. I'm not sure of a way to correct this issue. Maybe someone can explain this. | |
| Tech Ranger 2004-01-19, 7:52 pm |
| I set up a superscope on one of my servers. It looks like nothing more than a shell in which to drop scopes. You cannot configure a superscope as far as I can see. You still need to manage the scopes inside it. How is it different from 2 scopes on one server not part of a superscope? | |
| aznluvsmc 2004-01-19, 9:43 pm |
| Here is the difference between 2 scopes combined into a Superscope and 2 scopes managed separately.
Combining 2 scopes into a superscope allows the DHCP server to assign an IP address from either scope to the client. So let's say you have Scope1 and Scope2 within your Superscope. When a client requests an IP address from the DHCP server, the server assigns an IP address from Scope1 as an example but it can also be Scope2. Now the client can communicate with any other client that also received an IP address from Scope1.
If the client releases the IP and then renews it, it MAY now get an IP address from Scope2. As far as the DHCP server is concerned it assigned an IP address from the same scope as before because the Superscope is considred one scope regardless of how many scopes it contains. As far as the client is concerned it received an IP address from the server. As far as we network administrators are concerned, this IP address does not allow communication with the clients that received an IP address from scope1 but the client can now communicate with other clients that received IP addresses from Scope2.
If you had 2 separate scopes not within a superscope then the client will always receive an IP address from Scope1 assuming that's his local subnet. The client will NEVER receive an IP address from scope2 because the DHCP server sees it as 2 different scopes. Only one scope can be assigned to a particular subnet at any time.
Hope that cleared things up. | |
| Tech Ranger 2004-01-20, 12:02 am |
| Why would you want to have 2 scopes applying to the same subnet with no predictability as to whom would be able to communicate with whom? | |
| Tech Ranger 2004-01-20, 12:13 am |
| | |
| aznluvsmc 2004-01-20, 11:14 am |
| quote:
Why would you want to have 2 scopes applying to the same subnet with no predictability as to whom would be able to communicate with whom?
Superscopes allow you to add more IP addresses to a scope when your existing scope is running low or had depleted its IP address range. The fact that clients may not receive a local IP address is a side effect of using superscopes.
I don't really know of any network implementations that use Superscopes so don't worry too much about it. I know our network here doesn't use it. |
|
|
|