• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trouble with DHCP configuration in win-2000 server

S

scorpio5780

Member
Hi there

I am trying to distribute the IPs provided by my ISP to the clients using DHCP.
But I am not able to figure out how to configure it in my comp lab. I tried something but it didn't work.

server: win-2000
client: win-me

Information provided by ISP:
IP range: a.b.c.226 - a.b.c.254
router: a.b.c.225
subnet: 255.255.255.224


I am setting my servers address as : a.b.c.226, subnet: 255.255.255.224


DHCP settings:
IP range excluded from DHCP: a.b.c.226 - a.b.c.226 ( server's IP)
subnet: 255.255.255.224 (as provided by my ISP)
router information: a.b.c.225

The result is that the DHCP is not working.

Is there any other way of using DHCP? Like setting internal IPs (10.10.1.1 - 10.10.1.xxx) and using the server's internet connection to connect all the client PCs to the internet.

Please help me out. Its my first time with DHCP.

Thanx
Scorpio5780🙁
 
If I remember correctly you need to input the entire subnet for it to take and then exclude that appropriate address (servers, routers, etc). BUT FOR A .224 SUBNET MASK YOU HAVE THE WRONG RANGE.

Usable host ranges for a /27 are as follows:
.33 - .62
.65 - .94
.97 - .126
.161 - .190
.193 - .222

Are you sure you have the right snm? Double check it and post again.

FYI, you should always keep a few extra IP's reserved for expansion, but then again, this is just a lab we're talking about...
 
Hi Nutz

The subnet mask is .224. I remember it by heart bcos it has bugged me a lot. The range is also fine bcos Internet works when I assign static IPs to the machines.
As far as expansion is concerned, I will be doing that. It was just that I didn't wanted to make the information I provided too complex.

If you come across something, please reply.
Thanx
 
The subnet mask is .224. I remember it by heart bcos it has bugged me a lot. The range is also fine bcos Internet works when I assign static IPs to the machines.

I've always noticed Winboxes don't really care what subnet mask you give them, they seem to work no matter what you type in even if the default gateway isn't in the subnet you told it.

How is DHCP not working? Are the clients not getting addresses or are the clients not able to connect to anything with the address they got?
 
Are you running Active Directory? If you are you need to authorize your DHCP server in the Active Directory. It won't be able to hand out leases untill you do that. When you look at the DHCP snap in, does the Server icon have a little red thingy on it?
 
The Authorization thing...I had trouble with this too, even though it was a stand-alone W2K server...I don't remember how I fixed it, though. 🙁

A better description of the actual problem symptoms would be helpful too.

--Woodie
 
I would select a range of ip addresses that fall within the /27 specs, using the specified snm.

So:
Range: a.b.c.230 to a.b.c.239
snm: 255.255.255.224
Def Gateway: a.b.c.225 <-internal IP addy of the router

Shouldn't the router have two addresses: external (.225) and internal (??)

--Woodie

 


<< I've always noticed Winboxes don't really care what subnet mask you give them, they seem to work no matter what you type in even if the default gateway isn't in the subnet you told it. >>



In my experience, DHCP manager wouldn't even let me input host ranges if I had them wrong (according to whatever SNM I was using.) I still don't understand how they were working if they were set statically. Personally I think its the IP scheme they gave out that's pooched. Unless there is more going on that what's been posted, those IP's shouldn't be working in the first place.
 
In my experience, DHCP manager wouldn't even let me input host ranges if I had them wrong (according to whatever SNM I was using.)

I meant clients, I wouldn't trust a Windows box to do something like DHCP.
 
"I would select a range of ip addresses that fall within the /27 specs, using the specified snm."

Thats worth trying. I'll try this.

"Shouldn't the router have two addresses: external (.225) and internal (??)"

I don't it think so. why would the router have an Internal IP ????
😕
 


<< I wouldn't trust a Windows box to do something like DHCP >>



Are you kidding me? DHCP in 2k is RFC. How does it differ from any other implementation?
 
A router should have (at least) two interfaces, in order to route between networks, otherwise, what is it doing?

For a home network, it routes between the Internet and the private network. So, one interface is the DSL/CableModem hookup, and the other one is the ethernet card.

--Woodie
 
Exactly. In almost every instance a router can be found with at least one WAN interface and one LAN interface. Otherwise what's the router routing between? (of course it could be routing beween two LANs, but that's not the point.)
 
Are you kidding me? DHCP in 2k is RFC. How does it differ from any other implementation?

I didn't say it didn't follow the RFC, I meant I wouldn't trust it to stay up.
 
DHCP is working.. I dont know what the problem was. I just reinstalled the server.
settings:
server IP: a.b.c.226
DHCP range: a.b.c.227 - a.b.c.254
subnet: 255.255.255.224

It worked. It was just another WINDOWS X-FILES problem. 🙂
 


<< I didn't say it didn't follow the RFC, I meant I wouldn't trust it to stay up. >>



You know nothing about Win2k Advanced Server if you think it cannot reliably provide a simple network service like DHCP. Properly distributed and arranged, network services in 2k are almost 100% reliable ( as we both know, 100% is impossible). MS claim five nine's (99.999), and in my years of experience I wouldnt be able to prove otherwise (but nor do I accpet this number, I think it's a tad high). Of course, I know what I'm doing, and my networks generally stay working long after I am gone. Not every NT admin can do that. Don't blame the OS in this case, blame the Admins.

Just like any other OS, proper design, fault tolerance, and decent administration are required to achieve results.
2k is stable when properly administered. You cannot possibly say otherwise.

 
DHCP is working.. I dont know what the problem was. I just reinstalled the server.

You can say what you will, but I see things like this a little too often for my tastes. Replace reinstalled with rebooted, for the more common case.
 
And what I will to say, Nothinman, is that situations like this are the cause of poor administration, not a poor OS.
People think it's easy to set network services up in 2k becuase it's in a GUI and it looks like 98. Guess what. They are wrong. You need to know what you are doing. That is common to all OS's. The fact that more pseduo-admins are attracted to 2k becuase of it's percieved simplicity has nothing to do with any inherent weaknesses the OS contains.
I'm just tired of hearing you blame the tool, and not the workman. Initially you appeared to be condecending the OS. Is that what you are doing?
 
I'm just tired of hearing you blame the tool, and not the workman.

I have no problems blaming the workman, but it's hard when there companies producing the software tell you to do that really stupid stuff, like Citrix recommneds that you reboot your Citrix boxes nightly, how dumb is that?

Initially you appeared to be condecending the OS. Is that what you are doing?

Partially I am, because in my experience (I admit it's not a whole helluva lot) it's a lot easier to setup a well working, secure unix box than it is to setup a secure, well working NT box.
 


<< in my experience (I admit it's not a whole helluva lot) >>



Fair enough. Personally, I don't talk about *nix because I don't feel strong enough with it yet. That's just me though.
 
I have to say I lean more toward's Saltin's point here....the M$ implementation of DHCP works just fine, but it tends to lull you into thinking you're doing it right if you don't know what you're doing:

I consider myself a pretty knowledgable admin, and a fair network guy, and it took me 2 tries to get the DHCP/DNS service setup correctly, since M$ picks default settings that are generally inappropriate. I know, my fault for accepting the default settings, anyway, the fault doesn't lie in M$ poor implementation of the service, rather in not holding my hand enough...or really, I didn't do my homework and learn the stuff before setting it up.

For uptime, my home DNS/DHCP W2K server has been up for about 6 months, when I had to (well, chose to) power down to replace a bad HD.

Concerning ease of configuring services, that's a function of what you know and are comfortable with, more than a function of the OS. Ease is in the eye of the beholder. I would bet that Nothinman could have his Unix server up and configured faster than I could get my W2K server up and configured. 😱

--Woodie
 
I'm just tired of people shooting off anti-ms sentiment, when it is clear that the majority of thier MS experience is 9x and 3.1.
Security is an issue in 2k, I will always allow this point. It should be stronger out of the box. These holes can be fixed, for the most part, by an experienced user.
But stability? You would only call 2k unstable if you had no experience with it.
 
I have to say I lean more toward's Saltin 's point here....the M$ implementation of DHCP works just fine, but it tends to lull you into thinking you're doing it right if you don't know what you're doing:

I know, I was just making an overbroad generilization because my experience with Windows has been less than spectacular and I just don't really like it. For example, to backup your DHCP server's configuration and scope setups, how do you do that in Win2K (I'm serious, I've never set it up before)? On my Linux box at home I just copy the dhcpd.conf file somewhere else, simple, easy and requires no special tools. I just feel MS makes things harder than they need to be, intentionally and for no good reason.

the fault doesn't lie in M$ poor implementation of the service, rather in not holding my hand enough...or really, I didn't do my homework and learn the stuff before setting it up.

I guess you could say they held your hand enough, but led you in the wrong direction =)

Concerning ease of configuring services, that's a function of what you know and are comfortable with, more than a function of the OS. Ease is in the eye of the beholder.

I know all about this, hell I actually like vi =)

Security is an issue in 2k, I will always allow this point. It should be stronger out of the box. These holes can be fixed, for the most part, by an experienced user.

Security is an issue everywhere, no OS comes with 100% good defaults. When I installed Solaris on a test box a while back I was amazed at how many services were running by default and how much work it was to find and shut them down.

But stability? You would only call 2k unstable if you had no experience with it.

Like I said Citrix recommends you reboot your Citrix boxes nightly =)

And I've seen print drivers BSOD a Citrix box way too many times. I know Citrix adds a lot of kernel code to Windows, but the fact that a print driver can BSOD the box amazes me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top