DHCP... who should do it?

Q

QwertyJuan

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 17, 2000
Messages
11,285
I am taking down one of my 2k servers that also does the DHCP.... I am wondering... should I just install DHCP on another 2k server?? I also have an IPcop running... should I let my IPCop do the DHCP since it's not doing much else? I haven't really looked into this before, and was wondering what YOU guys think would be best??

QJ
 
If you are running Active Directory I would have the W2K Server hand out DHCP addresses. This way the clients can register back with the server in DNS, and WINS. If you are not using AD, then let IPCop do it.
 
I'd go with a server close to the core of the network, that has the longest life expectancy; like a fairly new one or one that has been upgraded recently. That way you wont have to move it again anytime soon.
But thats just me.

in my experience, DHCP isnt very taxing on a server. As long as hosts can reach it, it will do its thing!
 
ianshot said:
If you are running Active Directory I would have the W2K Server hand out DHCP addresses. This way the clients can register back with the server in DNS, and WINS. If you are not using AD, then let IPCop do it.
Click to expand...

*slaps forehead*
oh! good call, i dont know why i forgot to mention that too....thats especially true when using AD.

nice save ianshot!
 
ianshot said:
If you are running Active Directory I would have the W2K Server hand out DHCP addresses. This way the clients can register back with the server in DNS, and WINS. If you are not using AD, then let IPCop do it.
Click to expand...

You don't need MS DHCP for dynamic updates in DNS unless the clients are pre-Windows 2000.
 
all my clients are winxp sp2 actually... but I'm still gonna go with one of my win2k DC's....

QJ
 
Personally, I hate M$'s DNS server... But with the integration, why not. Running dhcpd and bind on a *N*X server would probably be overkill anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top