dhcp best practices
1st off don't laugh. this is an embarrassment to the IT World
So i just started working at this company and man i have to say their network is jacked up.
they have 2 DHCP scopes running on two different servers
the DHCP scope has no reservation allocated for the networking gear or the servers
their servers have 2 active nics (some 3) on the same network - no sub-netting.
they have a slew of ip-conflicts weekly (attributed by the servers being in the same pool as the dhcp scope)
What i would like to know is this
1. by removing the homing nics will it increase performance?
2. how is this setup bad?
sorry just ranting and looking for good answers
So i just started working at this company and man i have to say their network is jacked up.
they have 2 DHCP scopes running on two different servers
the DHCP scope has no reservation allocated for the networking gear or the servers
their servers have 2 active nics (some 3) on the same network - no sub-netting.
they have a slew of ip-conflicts weekly (attributed by the servers being in the same pool as the dhcp scope)
What i would like to know is this
1. by removing the homing nics will it increase performance?
2. how is this setup bad?
sorry just ranting and looking for good answers
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
As for a more constructive way to tell the client they have a bad setup, tell them that are expeirncing porblems and issues right now. Until this is sorted out, they will cary on experiencing problems.
If they want to see MS best practices, see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc780311(WS.10).aspx & http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc776596(WS.10).aspx
One thing MS haven't included on their DHCP server is DHCP server clustering which is now in the spec, but MS want you to buy their enterprise version of Windows and cluster DHCP using windows clustering. 3 times the cost.
If they want to see MS best practices, see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc780311(WS.10).aspx & http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc776596(WS.10).aspx
One thing MS haven't included on their DHCP server is DHCP server clustering which is now in the spec, but MS want you to buy their enterprise version of Windows and cluster DHCP using windows clustering. 3 times the cost.
ASKER
hi guys
i appreciate the feedback, this PIX seems to have some sort of issue outside of the configuration. the only thing i did outside of the config was upgrade the firewall pdm software. The other line items regarding http .0.0.0.0 and telnet 0.0.0.0 :) i was unable to hit the pdm from the outside (assuming i could use telnet on ethernet0 - and that we must use SSH on the public interface.)
so once i get everything cleared up, i will remove these and take care of everything internally from one of the servers using rdp.
i really appreciate the feedback.
i did notice that each time i put a command in place it takes the firewall several minutes to "turn on" or "turn off" ... i.e. i add a NAT rule and it is inaccessible for several minutes. i know the device is old but i am using this in the interim until i can get myself a decent ASA 5505
i appreciate the feedback, this PIX seems to have some sort of issue outside of the configuration. the only thing i did outside of the config was upgrade the firewall pdm software. The other line items regarding http .0.0.0.0 and telnet 0.0.0.0 :) i was unable to hit the pdm from the outside (assuming i could use telnet on ethernet0 - and that we must use SSH on the public interface.)
so once i get everything cleared up, i will remove these and take care of everything internally from one of the servers using rdp.
i really appreciate the feedback.
i did notice that each time i put a command in place it takes the firewall several minutes to "turn on" or "turn off" ... i.e. i add a NAT rule and it is inaccessible for several minutes. i know the device is old but i am using this in the interim until i can get myself a decent ASA 5505
ASKER
lol - disregard my last post intended for another issue
thanks for your feedback :)
thanks for your feedback :)
ASKER
thanks anyway