Oh, I'm sure it will work. It's not that it isn't *right*, it's that I think it would be a bit less confusing if it were arranged a different way. But, that does depend on your circumstances.
If you have a flat network - that is, not segmented at all, with no router - then what you're setting up might very well be the best you can do. OTOH, if you've got a large enough environment that you have a router to separate subnets in your office, it's possible to make some more interesting arrangements, like putting your phones on a separate (V)LAN, and a separate DHCP scope. Kurt On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:36, HELP_PC <[email protected]> wrote: > At the moment corporate let us use indipendent internet connection while all > other traffic is routed to a corporate wan router with proper DNS settings. > So I asked if , for just a couple of Cisco phones that need a tftserver > option to the wan, I could use some reserved addresses in the same scope. > AFAIK reserved clients options supersede common options. > Isn't right ? > > > GuidoElia > HELPPC > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] > Inviato: sabato 24 ottobre 2009 16.56 > A: NT System Admin Issues > Oggetto: Re: R: New DHCP scope > > While I don't know all of your circumstances, it seems to me that instead of > trying to do funky things with DHCP, you'd be better off re-architecting your > network. Having two different exits from your network segment seems a bit > inefficient or confusing. > > I understand that this might not be under your control, but that's the > thought that comes to mind. > > Kurt > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 21:53, HELP_PC <[email protected]> wrote: >> I need some addresses for Cisco phones , but the default gateway >> should be a corporate router and not the local DSL router >> >> GuidoElia >> HELPPC >> >> ________________________________ >> Da: Brian Desmond [mailto:[email protected]] >> Inviato: sabato 24 ottobre 2009 6.49 >> A: NT System Admin Issues >> Oggetto: RE: New DHCP scope >> >> I am not sure offhand, but, I would look at the SuperScope feature as >> I believe it's more inline with what I suspect you're trying to do. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Brian Desmond >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> c - 312.731.3132 >> >> >> >> From: HELP_PC [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:47 PM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: New DHCP scope >> >> >> >> >> >> Is it possible to create a new DHCP scope using a range of excluded >> addresses of the first scope ? >> >> I.e. if I escluded a range 10.124.116.100 to 110 from the actual scope >> , could this range be the range for the new scope (with other scope options)? >> >> TIA >> >> GuidoElia >> HELPPC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
