Sorry, Laura is right. If you are using either routers with bootp
support, or the MS DHCP relay agent, it doesn't make any difference on
which subnet your DHCP server actually resides.

And DHCP traffic is so low, it is not typically a consideration in
bandwidth reduction plans.

Malcolm

On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 17:28:44 GMT, "ROU Velocity Governor"
<jfb2908@hottmail.com> wrote:

>OK so I disagree with Laura :-)
>B and E is not the correct answer IMHO
>
>If you only have B and E :
>
>> B. Make sure that your router supports BootP.
>
>> E. If your router does not support BootP, make sure that you install a
>> DHCP relay agent on each subnet.
>
>then where are your DHCP servers ? Also, B and E are mutually inconsistent.
>
>
>Consider the choices one by one, starting with the easiest (I'm working
>outside MCSE la-la land here :-)
>
>> B. Make sure that your router supports BootP.
>
>OK so what if it doesn't ? Throw your router away ? No, you would either
>install DHCP servers on each subnet or use DHCP relay agents to direct the
>discovery requests. So (B) is out :-)
>
>
>> D. If your router supports BootP, make sure that you install a DHCP
>> relay agent on each subnet.
>
>If your router supports BootP, the discovery requests can be passed without
>the use of a relay agent so (D) is out :-)
>
>
>> A. Make sure that you have identified a Windows 2000 Server on each
>> subnet on which to install the DHCP services.
>
>At this point, consider the part of the question which says "break the
>network into three subnets in order to control the bandwidth utilization of
>the overall network". This means that you don't want DHCP discovery
>requests broadcast across subnets if they can be answered locally. I
>would *definitely* identify a Windows 2000 Server on each subnet to either
>act as a full blown DHCP server - or if one of these could not be
>identified (eg all servers too busy) at least as a relay agent if the
>router was not BootP compliant. So (A) is in :-)
>
>
>> C. If your router supports BootP, make sure that you install a DHCP
>> server on each subnet.
>
>This is a bit of peverse logic, but if you consider it together with (E),
>this gives you the opportunity for fault tolerance.
>
>> E. If your router does not support BootP, make sure that you install a
>> DHCP relay agent on each subnet.
>
>So if the DHCP server on a particular subnet 'disappears', DHCP discovery
>requests can either be passed across the router (BootP compliant and DHCP
>servers present on other subnets) or directed to a functional DHCP server on
>another subnet (DHCP relay agent and DHCP servers present on other subnets).
>
>
>To summarise - correct answer IMHO is A, C and E
>
>
>
>
>

Report this post to a moderator

You`re method would work but why use 3 dhcp servers when you can just
as easily use 1 or 2?
A important part of setting up a network infrastucture is reducing
cost of ownership
You`re method does`nt reduce the cost of ownership so it is *wrong*
Paul

"ROU Velocity Governor" <jfb2908@hottmail.com> wrote in message news:<es3go6L0BHA.2216@tkmsftngp07>...
> Time to revisit this.
>
> The scenario given in the question is typical of network growth in small /
> medium enterprises (SMEs).
> What happens is that fixed address management becomes a burden necessitating
> the switch to DHCP. At the same time, the network may be broken up into
> multiple subnets in order to reduce network traffic and increase
> performance, siting relevant servers and clients together.
>
> Now - the move would be from static IP addresses to dynamically allocated
> addresses and from one subnet to *TWO* or *THREE* subnets. No-one is going
> to jump to from static to dynamic and one subnet to twenty or a hundred
> subnets at the same time.
>
> So, given the move to two or possibly three subnets, I stand by A,C and E.
> One DHCP server per subnet for fault tolerance configured with mulitple
> scopes split 80/20.
>
> No-one is talking about an enterprise with 20,000 computers on it connected
> to a WAN across thirteen countries.....
>
>
> > I gave you this scenario to try to make you understand how ridiculious
> > answer A is.If answer A is correct that means if the network grew
> > again to 50 subnets you would also increase dhcp servers to 50 which
> > in the real world is totally wrong also the question says "you are
> > going to implement DHCP to manager the IP addresses centrally."which
> > certainly does`nt mean 1 dhcp server per subnet
> >

Report this post to a moderator