tunde kalejaiye wrote: > > the problem is dhcp...the client doesnt get an ip address hence > the no > domain controller....error message. i have enabled portfast on > a few of the > ports and i am waiting to get results on monday....i will keep > u posted. > > regards, >
Thanks for getting back to us. This is how Group Study should work! I guess I shouldn't have gone off on a tangent with some guesses about something other than this obvious thing being wrong. :-) Sometimes when we have information about only one symptom, the obvious hypothesis is right. Often that's not the case, though, and more info should be gathered. Probably the client ends up with an address from the Microsoft Automatic Private IP Addressing scheme, 169.254.0.1 through 169.254.255.254. Depending on the OS, a lot of machines choose for themselves one of these addresses if set to receive an address "dynamically" and DHCP fails. That would have been the additional clue that would have helped solidify a good hypotheses. Thanks to everyone who participated. Do keep us posted! Thanks! Priscilla > Tunde > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" > To: > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:22 PM > Subject: RE: Catalyst 4000 and DHCP [7:62632] > > > > Waters, Kristina wrote: > > > > > > I am curious as to whether anything else got upgraded > besides > > > the new > > > switch. I got the impression that this wasn't a problem > before > > > the upgrade, > > > in which case portfast could definitely be the culprit. > > > However, you could > > > also see this error if DNS is improperly configured in a > win2k > > > domain. Also, > > > I'm not sure about this, but if the 4006 has a sup3 or sup4, > > > could the > > > problem be related to layer 3? > > > > Sure it could. He says all that he did was put a switch in, > but there's a > > good chance he did more than that, but we may never know... > Sigh. But a > new > > switch might imply that he also put in VLANs, a L3 module, > etc. > > > > When people send in questions, it would be nice if they would > send in > enough > > info so we could do more than guess. It would be nice if they > would > provide > > a follow-up also and let us know what the problem really was > and what > fixed > > it. > > > > Some people can't stand the "out of the office" messages. > > > > I can't stand the messages that ressemble someone calling > their doctor on > > the phone and saying no more than, "Hey doc, I'm tired. Why?" > > > > Now, if you go to the doctor in person, this might be OK > because then the > > doctor can examine you. Here the analogy falls apart. We > can't examine > > someone else's network. However, the wise poster will > communicate info to > us > > about their examination of their network to help us help > them. (This isn't > > targetted at the original poster specifically, who did supply > at least > some > > info.) > > > > Troubleshooting should be done systematically. It's not a > guessing game. > > > > Hope we learn more about what the issue was! It could be > educational for > > many of us. > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > > > Kris > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:24 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: Catalyst 4000 and DHCP [7:62632] > > > > > > > > > Tunde Kalejaiye wrote: > > > > > > > > hi all, > > > > > > > > we just upgraded our network to a switched, a catalyst > 4006 > > > to be > > > > exact....some users have been getting 'no domain server > > > > available ....' > > > > error message. they usually have to try more than 4 - 6 > times > > > to > > > > successfully log on to the network. > > > > has anybody come across this problem before? what work > around > > > > did u use > > > > besides configuring static ip addresses? > > > > thanks for your response(s) in advance > > > > > > Your message title implies that there's a problem with DHCP, > > > but then your > > > message text implies that the problem is with Windows > > > networking, > > > specifically a client trying to reach the domain > controller? (I > > > assume you > > > mean the Windows type domain server and not the IP Domain > Name > > > System.) > > > > > > So, verify for yourself and us that DHCP is working first. > If > > > the failure is > > > with DHCP, try the stuff other folks recommended. Enable > > > portfast so that > > > the clients can start receiving replies to their DHCP > request > > > ASAP. Also, > > > you may need a helper address, depending on where your DHCP > > > server is > > > located. Feel free to send us more info about your topology > and > > > configuration. > > > > > > Then, you have to get Winblows working. I did have all > sorts of > > > problems > > > getting this to work with a consulting client who had > upgraded > > > to VLANs. > > > Unfortunately, he fixed the problems in the end without my > > > help, so I don't > > > know the details, one of the frustrating things about being > a > > > consulant. (A > > > lot of help that is. ;-) But you could look through some > Group > > > Study > > > messages from about a month ago. A bunch of folks had ideas > to > > > help. I think > > > the title of the thread was something about Windows > Networking. > > > > > > Here's one message that a wise person on the list sent' I've > > > forgotten who, > > > sorry. > > > > > > "Simplest solution is to put a WINS Server on the Subnet > that > > > can't find the > > > DC. Configure it to replicate with the DC on the other > Subnet, > > > or Statically > > > configure the Domain Name entry for the NT Domain on the > WINS > > > Server in the > > > troubled subnet. Your "DC Not Found" issue should be > resolved > > > then. > > > > > > More Administratively intensive solution is to modify the > > > LMHOSTS file to > > > have the following entry on every Windows > Workstation/Server in > > > the troubled > > > subnet. > > > > > > IP.ADD.RE.SS MachineName #PRE #DOM:Domain-Name" > > > > > > > > > Microsoft has tons of documentation on this sort of thing. > > > > > > Keep us posted! Thanks, > > > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tunde > > > > ********************************************************************** > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are > confidential > > > and > > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to > whom > > > they > > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error > please > > > notify > > > the sender by email, delete and destroy this message and its > > > attachments. > > > > ********************************************************************** > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62718&t=62632 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
