<div>
I will tackle vlans later ... client needs to upgrade some switches first. If I understand correctly - will this work?<br />
1. Delete current 192.168.1.0/24 scope.<br />
2. Create new 192.168.1.0/22 scope.<br />
3. Exclude 192.168.1.1 to .254 range.<br />
<br />
This way I have time to update manually the static clients, right? Will everything still run the same - dhcp, reserved and static? Will the reserved automatically be erased when I delete the original scope? Is there a way to export/import the reserved, even though they have a different subnet mask?
</div>


<div>
Yes, It will work from dhcp clients perspective. Be aware that if If other devices are set with manual ips you need to reconfigure them as well.
</div>


<div>
Hello Craig,<br />
<br />
Just for not confusing other potential people reading this blog. Superscopes can be used with multiple IP addresses on the same server's NIC, but it is not than that is the 'only' way to use it, it is even not the common way to use it, as far as this configuration is usually set on routers and not on the server.<br />
<br />
There are multiples ways and purposes of configuring superscopes, and it is not mandatory to put multiple IP addresses on the same server's NIC. In the practice, when superscopes are used the additional addresses are usually handled by the Router within the same physical network, rather than the server, some examples, scenarios and concepts of superscopes are listed here: <a href="https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd759168(v=ws.11).aspx" rel="ugc">https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd759168(v=ws.11).aspx</a>.<br />
<br />
Another detail, just for clarifying, it is not just to increase the DHCP scope to /22. The scope does not increment as far as an expansion that involve a subnet mask change is not possible. It requires deleting it and re-creating it. And as specified before, it requires reconfiguring the server's ip addresses and probably the one of communication devices involved in the network as well. (Process specified by Xav1963).
</div>


<div>
@schnellsolutions - Thanks for the pep-talk.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately your statement isn't quite right. &nbsp;Superscopes are specifically for where you use multiple IP addresses on the DHCP server's NIC, or where you're using multinets. &nbsp;It is EXACTLY where you use it and is extremely common.<br />
<br />
See Microsoft's explanation, here...<br />
<a href="https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd759168(v=ws.11).aspx" rel="ugc">https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd759168(v=ws.11).aspx</a><br />
<br />
I never once said it's mandatory to put multiple IP addresses on a server's NIC in order to use superscopes. &nbsp;What I said is that you'd use a superscope where multiple IPs were on a server's NIC.<br />
<br />
Here, you wouldn't want to use superscopes. &nbsp;You'd simply create one scope for the subnet you're going to implement. &nbsp;If you were to add multiple IPs to the server's NIC you would use a superscope.<br />
<br />
Also, I really don't need teaching how to subnet. &nbsp;I do it day-in, day-out. &nbsp;I can't really understand your last paragraph properly, but it is entirely possible to simply change the subnet mask on the server and the router, and create a scope with the correct subnet size. &nbsp;You absolutely and categorically DO NOT have to change the IP address on either the server or the router in order to use a /22 or even a /23 subnet size.
</div>


<div>
Thanks Craig, it looks that you did not get my points, indeed. Like I said, it is for avoiding confusion to possible readers of this forum...<br />
<br />
Because you wrote on your first comment: <b>You only want to do that if you have multiple IP addresses on the server's NIC</b>. At least you corrected it for the second comment, because now you added: <u>or where you're using multinets</u>. That '<b>OR</b>' is important in the comment :).<br />
<br />
This is because the point is not '<b>server's NIC</b>, the point is multiple IPs on the same physical network (They can be configured at the router interface for example). It is not something necessarily 'only' on the server. You can review it on the same link that you sent as well.<br />
<br />
I have administered implementations with the use of superscopes with Windows NT, 2003, 2008 and 2012. And none of them required <b>multiple IP addresses on the server's NIC</b>. That is the point that I wanted to clarify.<br />
<br />
My last paragraph was because you wrote <b>Increase the DHCP scope to a /22</b>. It does not sound like changing the subnet mask of a server or a router, as far as it says <u>DHCP scope</u> it means that it is the DHCP configuration. And to make it clear... One scope cannot simply be increased, it needs to be deleted and re-created again. But again... you made the correction on your last comment specifying that they are the changes on the server and router subnet mask. You last comment is fine. But please, check what you wrote on your first comment. That is what I was talking about, but now you made it clear &nbsp;:).<br />
<br />
By the way... the link that yo sent also specifies that one scenario for the use of superscopes is when:<br />
<br />
<i><span>The available address pool for a currently active scope is nearly depleted, and more computers need to be added to the network. The original scope includes the full addressable range for a single IP network of a specified address class. You need to use another range of IP addresses to extend the address space for the same physical network segment.</span></i><br />
<br />
But anyway, like we are stating, the other option can be carried out as well.
</div>


<div>
Hmmm, no... I got your points. &nbsp;I merely added further clarity in my second post.<br />
<br />
It appears that it was actually you who didn't understand my comments. &nbsp;You're implying that I think if we change a subnet mask we change the scope size. &nbsp;That is simply incorrect. &nbsp;Also, I'm being specific to this scenario. &nbsp;We obviously have a single VLAN so the DHCP server is on the same segment as the clients. &nbsp;That is why, in my first post, I said...<br />
<br />

<blockquote>
You don't need to create a superscope. &nbsp;You only want to do that if you have multiple IP addresses on the server's NIC.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Anyhow, you wrote...<br />
<br />

<blockquote>
My last paragraph was because you wrote Increase the DHCP scope to a /22. It does not sound like changing the subnet mask of a server or a router, as far as it says DHCP scope it means that it is the DHCP configuration.
</blockquote>
<br />
However, I clearly said...<br />
<br />

<blockquote>
Increase the DHCP scope to a /22 and change the server's subnet mask to 255.255.252.0.
</blockquote>
<br />
You see, I said we need to increase the DHCP scope size <b>AND</b> change the subnet mask. &nbsp;Perhaps you missed that? &nbsp;I therefore didn't need to correct anything in my first or second post as I was correct the first time in both cases. &nbsp;The only adjustment I may have made is to substitute the word SPECIFICALLY for ESPECIALLY in my second post.<br />
<br />
Well done for picking out the section that states you can superscope when address pools are depleted. &nbsp;Unfortunately though, you failed to understand the assertion that here we also need to add multiple IP addresses to the server's NIC in order to allow the server to be able to talk to clients on those subnets. &nbsp;I'll let you work out why, but I'll give you a clue.... we're on the same layer-2 segment. &nbsp;<br />
<br />
To be more specific... you are right that it isn't mandatory to add IP addresses from each subnet on the DHCP server's NIC in order to give IP addresses, but I also clarified that earlier in response to your incorrect statement.<br />
<br />
The point is that if your server has 192.168.1.1/24 and you give a client 192.168.2.76/24 it won't be able to see the server without using a router. &nbsp;That's basic IP because of the mask. &nbsp;Therefore you have to give the server an IP address in each of the subnets that you're assigning when you're on the same layer-2 segment, or clients on the new subnets won't talk to the server.
</div>


<div>
It is so simple... You used two sentences that are confusing (for not telling than incorrect).<br />
<br />
Sentence 1: (You are stating on the first sentence...)<br />
<b>You <u>only</u> want to do that if you have multiple IP addresses on the server's NIC.</b><br />
<br />
There you were missing than that is not the only case like that sentence says. it says 'only' according to what you wrote there, and it is NOT 'only' on the server NIC, it is even more commonly configured in a router. Is it to complicated to get the point?<br />
<br />
Sentence 2: (You are stating on the second sentence...)<br />
<b>Increase the DHCP scope to a /22 and change the server's subnet mask to 255.255.252.0.</b><br />
<br />
It is more clear to specify that this increase consist on deleting the subnet and re-creating it again. Tomorrow someone can read this and might just try to modify the existing scope with the subnet that it uses, when that is not possible. Of course, it looks like that you mean deleting, recreating it. But I just mean to clarify it.<br />
<br />
If you do not want to make an effort to understand what is confusing with these two simple sentences that you wrote and understand that it can confuse others; or if it is the case that you just want to justify somehow than it is clear and correct making circles over the same thing... that's another point.
</div>


<div>
Please don't talk to me about simple sentences and confusing others...<br />
<br />

<blockquote>
There you were missing than that is not the only case like that sentence says.
</blockquote>
<br />
What it that nonsense???!?!??!!<br />
<br />
If YOU can't understand what I said, that's your issue!<br />
<br />

<blockquote>
Sentence 1: (You are stating on the first sentence...)<br />
You only want to do that if you have multiple IP addresses on the server's NIC.
</blockquote>
<br />
Yes, that's absolutely correct in <b>THIS</b> scenario. &nbsp;Why are you apparently only generalizing when it suits your argument?<br />
<br />

<blockquote>
it says 'only' according to what you wrote there, and it is NOT 'only' on the server NIC, it is even more commonly configured in a router. Is it to complicated to get the point?
</blockquote>
<br />
We're not talking about a routed network here though, so what <i>IS</i> your point? &nbsp;We're talking about <b>THIS</b> question.<br />
<br />
Really buddy, there's nothing you could teach me about IP networking and networking technologies on a server or a router. &nbsp;I've probably forgotten more than you'll ever learn.
</div>


<div>
God bless you my dear. &nbsp; :)
</div>


<div>
well... ok .... it seems that I have a choice here, depending what I consider easier.<br />
Choice 1 is add additional subnets, leaving original in tact, add superscope to encompass all subnets, add ips to server, configure router. No need to change current clients.<br />
Choice 2 is delete existing scope, redo with /22, as time permits -change subnet mask on server and static clients. No need to reconfigure switches or router.<br />
<br />
Does that sound about right? I think &nbsp;I am going with Choice 2.
</div>


<div>
Yeap, that is right.<br />
<br />
But it would be nicer if you additionally set the router interface as well to match /22. Because even if it can work (depending on your router configuration) that will corresponds exactly to the same network ID that you are using.
</div>


<div>
No that's not right. Option 2 requires you to change the subnet mask on the router. You MUST do that or clients using the new IPs won't be able to get off the network. You need to change the masks from the start, not as time permits.
</div>


<div>
Thanks for your input.... appreciate it greatly...
</div>


<div>
<div class="content wysiwyg-content">
Small network with 1 Server 2008 Enterprise R2 box ... has been increasing slightly throughout years ... adding a few ip phones and ip cameras and need a little more than the standard /24. I will consider vlans later. Right now, what is the easiest way without disruption to my network to increase DHCP scope from 192.168.1.0/24 to 192.168.1.0/22? Of course, still keeping my current reservations and possibly current leases? Thx for help..
</div>
</div>


Small network with 1 Server 2008 Enterprise R2 box ... has been increasing slightly throughout years ... adding a few ip phones and ip cameras and need a little more than the standard /24. I will consider vlans later. Right now, what is the easiest way without disruption to my network to increase DHCP scope from 192.168.1.0/24 to 192.168.1.0/22? Of course, still keeping my current reservations and possibly current leases? Thx for help..

Increase size of DHCP scope?

The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) is an auto configuration protocol used on IP networks and an extension of the Bootstrap Protocol. DHCP allows for computers to be configured automatically to communicate with each other over an IP network without the need for manual setup by a network administrator. The implementation of DHCP relies on a DHCP server to hand out network configuration information to DHCP-capable clients that request an IP address (and other information required or useful in communicating with other devices on an IP network). In addition to an IP address, common configuration information served over DHCP includes a default gateway, subnet mask and DNS sever(s).

DHCP

Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2, based on the Microsoft Vista codebase, is the last 32-bit server operating system released by Microsoft. It has a number of versions, including including Foundation, Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter, Web, HPC Server, Itanium and Storage; new features included server core installation and Hyper-V.

Windows Server 2008

The Windows operating systems have distinct methodologies for designing and implementing networks, and have specific systems to accomplish various networking processes, such as Exchange for email, Sharepoint for shared files and programs, and IIS for delivery of web pages. Microsoft also produces server technologies for networked database use, security and virtualization.

Windows Networking

Small Business Server (SBS) is a line of server operating systems targeted at small businesses by bundling the operating system with a number of other Microsoft products that would normally need to be purchased or licensed separately. The most notable inclusions are Exchange, SQL Server, SharePoint and ISA/TMG (Microsoft's firewall and proxy server).