I am no fan of NT, but I would choose NT over a router in almost all
circumstances.
I did have a customer who had a problem with Novell DHCP over the WAN. Win9x
users would get "Access Denied" when they tried to release/renew with
Winipcfg. I finally worked around with using DHCP on the router.
If all you need to do is hand out addresses, I would not be concerned with
using the router as DHCP. Our company is experimenting in house with Ip
phones that require DHCP to hand out TFTP server addresses as well as some
non-standard DHCP options. When I configured the routers as DHCP, I don't
recall being able configure all the DHCP options that are available on NT
DHCP nor being able to define options, but I didn't specifically look for
that either.
NT DHCP is easier to manage, the GUI helps here. I would also argue that if
you consider DHCP to be a critical service where an hour or 2 of downtime is
very bad, NT probably is not the NOS that you want to use, and that IOS
would be a better choice.
I would not concern myself with router performance while acting as a DHCP.
Scott Meyer
CCNA, CCDA, MCSE, etc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Groupstudy
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 7:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IOS DHCP vs NT DHCP
I beg to differ a little here. If you have ever monitored the DHCP servers
utilization, you will have noted it barely creeps over a percent or
two...ever. You certainly don't need it running on a high performance
computer. It is also very simple to setup and in the event your DHCP server
took a dump, you could have another one up and running in about 10 minutes
provided you wisely documented your original server parameters. The beauty
of DHCP is also in the fact that is leases IP addresses. When a DHCP server
crashes it does not affect many clients until their leases expire. In the
case of NT, the default lease period is three days I believe. This means
you can essentially live without it for quite a few hours, more than enough
time to configure and install a new one.
Case in point, I once got a call from a IT manager who had his DHCP server
take a dive right in front of him. He was managing a 2000 node network and
using NT for is DHCP services. He was frantic that his users would start
calling him any time to complain about their not being able to get on the
network. I told him to calm down and I would be there in about an hour.
When I got there I was able to retrieve the old DHCP server config files off
the crashed server and rebuild a new DHCP server on a nearby NT workstation
(pentium 133 with 32 mb RAM!) and have it up and running in about 45 minutes
including the newly installed NT Server OS. There were a couple of users
who called in bacause their leases were obviously renewable at that time. I
had desktop support reboot their PC's and they were happy. 99% of the
users didn't even blink. They went about their business as usual and their
PC's happily re-leased their IP addresses from the new DHCP server after
their daily shutdowns! Total downtime about 2 hours.
I agree with Pricilla to a certain extent in that I would not condone adding
DHCP services to a router that performs any kind of routing. I do think it
would be a good idea to dedicate an old 2500 for it though. Just make sure
you have a spare one around though in case it takes a dive.
----- Original Message -----
From: Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Eric Waguespack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ElephantChild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: IOS DHCP vs NT DHCP
> At 01:52 PM 3/15/01, Eric Waguespack wrote:
> >does anyone have any links to documentation comparing
> >the two? or opinions / personal experience to draw
> >from?
> >
> >i really dig the idea of yanking an nt dhcp server out
> >and replacing it with a 2600/3500 ios router running
> >dhcp
>
> That seems risky to me. A 2600 router has a 68000 CPU of some sort (I
> think). The same CPU on old Macintoshes. It doesn't have a whole lot of
> memory. And most importantly it's optimized to do one job: routing.
Routing
> is mission-critical. I wouldn't want to take away resources from that
> essential job.
>
> An NT server could be installed on a machine with 512 MB of memory, a 1
GHz
> P4 processor, a speedy and large hard drive, etc.
>
> Since DHCP is mission critical to most networks, I would want it running
on
> a high-performance system that isn't also doing routing.
>
> Priscilla
>
>
>
> >me ccnp/voice mcse ccdp cnx bla bla
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
> >http://auctions.yahoo.com/
> >
> >_________________________________
> >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ________________________
>
> Priscilla Oppenheimer
> http://www.priscilla.com
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
