DHCP Server netmask

ASKER

192.168.0.0 .. 192.168.3.254
or
192.168.4.0 .. 192.168.4.254

what IP-Adress and subnet mask does your server have?

ASKER

DHCP Server: 192.168.2.2/255.255.252.0

okay
the scope 192.168.0.0 .. 192.168.3.254 is in the IP area of your DHCP server (with this mask your network is from 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.3.255). You shouldn´t use the complet ip range for dhcp (!), restrict the range to the number of addresses you approx. need (your DHCP server is in the same area!). And avoid a scope with a zero in the network digits, as 192.168.0.x or 192.163.0.x ...
DHCP has a problem with.

ASKER

JBirkmann, still tested your suggestion (see examples at my first comment). I also always excluded the first and last IP address (.0 .255).

Avoiding scopes with zeros in it? It's a legal IP host address according to my netmask. Did M$ make simple things buggy?
(Even, I disn't use the scope with the zero ;-))

at last i´m not sure, whether you are using the other scope ( 192.168.4.0 .. 192.168.4.254) or not. If yes, how are the two networks connected

ASKER

It's one network, with DHCP running well.
Because I'm running out of IP addresses I tried to use more host bits with another netmask. Simple task I thought ...
So actually my scope is 192.168.2.20 .. 192.168.2.250 with netmask 255.255.255.0
I just want to increase the number of hosts served by DHCP, so I added scope 192.168.3. but DHCP didn't respond.

If I change the scope's netmask (regedt32)-: to 255.255.252.0 DHCP didn't respond to any request (even those for 192.168.2.),
probaly 'cause DHCP is "so clever" to waste its database by adding the netmask to each entry, even it is defined global in the registry.

bbao

Since you have the subnet mask 255.255.252.0 and the DHCP server is 192.168.2.2, so your hosts in the same subnet should be in the scope from 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.3.254. The DHCP scope can be this scope, but should be exclude 192.168.2.2 (DHCP server) and other fixed IPs of servers.

For the subnet 192.168.4.0, you need a DHCP agent enabled router on the net in order to let the DHCP server can assign address on the other subnet,

BTW, M$ supports all zero and all one in subnet.

In addition, M$KB Q167014 may help you find some reasons on why DHCP client may fail to obtain a DHCP assigned IP address

ASKER

bbao, all my servers are excluded from the scopes (see last comment).
Again, I don't have subnets, and my net is not routed, I just changed the netmask (should write IP addresses hex or binary:).

bbao, I'll check M$KB Q167014. So far I reopen this question to get more e-e hints ;-)

Fonnie

Since 192.168 is an internal network number, why not just bite the bullet, spend a day and change to 10.x.x.x
That way you never have to renumber again.

remove the old scopes from your dhcp-server, create a new one with the same subnet mask as your server (255.255.252.0), exclude your servers and other fix addresses and don´t change entries in the registry;
192.168.x.x isn´t an internal network number, you can use this addresses every time you want, cause these are private addresses (internal network numbers only used with IPX protocol)

ASKER

JBirkmann, I thought of this too (removing my existing scope).
But I have, 'cause of historical reason, more than 100 static mappings there. Do you know how to save them and read them back in my new scope. Otherwise this is not a solution of my problem :-(

Read your question,
you got the answers to your question;

good luck

Extend the existing scope and change the subnet. Use 255.255.240.0 for your subnet mask.

I think part of your problem is that with subnet mask 255.255.252.0, anything in 192.168.0.0, .1.0, .2.0, and .3.0 will think 192.168.4.0, .5.0, etc. are on the other side of a router. *This includes your DHCP server.* That could cause trouble.

ASKER

shermanj, how do I change the subnet mask (I only know of one entry in the registry).
Also, why should I use 255.255.240.0 instead of 255.255.252.0?
Of course, .4.0 and .5.0 must be routed to .1.0 etc. (according to my prefered netmask).

Subnet mask lives in two places: Network Neighborhood properties (Protocols|TCP/IP), and in DHCP Manager (can't tell you where exactly off the top of my head).

255.255.240.0 is just a larger IP block. That way, you don't have to worry about expanding things again later. Reason I mention this is because of the note you left earlier about using .4.0 in a scope. .4.0 would have to be routed to .1.0 according to that subnet mask, so use 255.255.240.0 to make it not try to find a router to talk to.

Ooooh, please don't make this into an IP training class, pleeease?

Listen, go out to your local big-ol'-bookstore and get "Mastering Windows NT Server 4.0" by Mark Minasi. It has a dynamite section on TCP/IP, including what subnet masks to choose, how to set up routers, how to set up DHCP servers, etc. If you really want me to, I could post the section on how IP routing works, but it's pretty big...

ASKER

> Reason I mention this is because of the note you left earlier about using .4.0 in a scope.

This note contains 2 examples according to my prefered netmask ;-)

> please don't make this into an IP training class ...
No, I know "something" about TCP/IP (see my netmask again).
And about you suggestion about bying a book:
I'm realy afraid bying a book about NT again, all those I still have contain tooo much errors, useless.

That note contains one example inside the same subnet as .2.0 and one outside. Which one are you wanting to use?

I have not found any errors in the book I mentioned. It's really very good... And its IP networking section is pretty generic except the later parts about configuring NT to do the stuff that's discussed.

'Course, I guess I'm assuming you're using NT 4.0 SP3... Maybe you're not...?

ASKER

> Which one are you wanting to use?
Doesn't matter. I always take care that the DHCP server resides in the same subnet as the scope it serves.

NT4.0 SP3 (+ some hotfixes)

So, have you tried just extending the .2.0 scope to include .3.0?

ASKER

Extending a scope? Some of the things which are not implemented ;-(
You just can add a new scope, but not one which covers an existing (M$'s definition of change := delete + create).

My question misses the point that I don't want to loose my existing scope, I want to change/extend it (see Birkmann's comment from July 15 1998 :-)

I thought you could... In DHCP Manager, double-click your scope. Input new start and end addresses. Maybe subnet mask, too, if nessicary. Push OK. Maybe I'm halucenating, but I thought you could do that...

ASKER

I would halucinate too ;-))
This is the reason for this question.

Okaaaayyy, maybe I AM halucenating... Okay, when you create a second scope (.3.0), I forget, does it automatically activate? You may just need to turn it on. Also, you may have to restart the DHCP Server service to make it start responding to requests.

How to restart DHCP server service (if I remember right :)
At command prompt type:
net stop dhcp server
net start dhcp server

Maybe this helps?

ASKER

shermanj, while talking to me as if I'm a bloody newby without a glue of NT, why did you not tell me to reboot after changing any bit? I really checked out a lot of things 'till I asked the world about my (oops, NT's) problem.
Sorry, but you told me nothing new.
Meanwhile I'm dreaming, halucinating that NT, sometimes, will work just like real OSs, will just do it ...

Hey, I was a newbie at NT as of a few months ago, but I can do most of the stuff I want to with it now... Though I must admit I haven't played with DHCP much other than the initial setup.

Have a little patience ahoffmann; there are a lot of newbies in this site, so I have no clue weather you're one of them.

Well, I can't think of anything else to try... Anyone else?

ASKER

shermanj, don't worry, I'm joking, sometimes, (probably I should use more emoticons:) sorry.
Let's return to the focus of this question.