B
bearre
Here is the scenario:
I have a single windows 2000 server running DHCP. A superscope was
created some time ago. All of our IP addresses are assigned to specific
workstations by mac address. Occasionally a workstation will have a mac
address entered under multiple network ranges within the superscope.
When the workstation powers on it receives a DHCP lease from the lowest
IP address in the superscope regardless of what VLAN or network it is
attached to from the switch side.
For example our superscope encompasses networks ranged from 10.250.0.0
to 10.250.250.0. In the scope for 10.250.10.0/23 (VLAN 10) an IP
address of 10.250.10.50 is assigned to a specific MAC address. That
same MAC address also has a reservation for an IP address of
10.250.20.50 in scope 10.250.20.0.23 (VLAN 20). It is connected on the
switch to VLAN 20 but it still receives the IP address from the scope
for VLAN 10. Once I remove reservation for 10.250.10.50 it receives the
other address.
Is this working as designed or is it not supposed to do this? All of
our other network subnets do not exist with this superscope and do not
have this issue.
I have a single windows 2000 server running DHCP. A superscope was
created some time ago. All of our IP addresses are assigned to specific
workstations by mac address. Occasionally a workstation will have a mac
address entered under multiple network ranges within the superscope.
When the workstation powers on it receives a DHCP lease from the lowest
IP address in the superscope regardless of what VLAN or network it is
attached to from the switch side.
For example our superscope encompasses networks ranged from 10.250.0.0
to 10.250.250.0. In the scope for 10.250.10.0/23 (VLAN 10) an IP
address of 10.250.10.50 is assigned to a specific MAC address. That
same MAC address also has a reservation for an IP address of
10.250.20.50 in scope 10.250.20.0.23 (VLAN 20). It is connected on the
switch to VLAN 20 but it still receives the IP address from the scope
for VLAN 10. Once I remove reservation for 10.250.10.50 it receives the
other address.
Is this working as designed or is it not supposed to do this? All of
our other network subnets do not exist with this superscope and do not
have this issue.