How to add another address range to DHCP server

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












Window Server 2012 DHCP server is currently configured as:




  • Subnet: 10.0.x.x (e.g. 10.0.0.0/16)


  • Dynamic IP Range: 10.0.0.12 - 10.0.0.120

enter image description here



This is done to limit dynamically assigned addresses to a small range on the subnet (and not overlap into other ranges).



I would like to add another address range to pool of available ranges that DHCP can pull from on our 10.0.x.x subnet:



DHCP Address Pool



  • 10.0.0.12 - 10.0.0.200

  • 10.0.27.12 - 10.0.27.150

enter image description here



Of course you can't do that because:



enter image description here



Of course it doesn't conflict; it's just being stubbon.



I want the DHCP server to offer addresses from a pool of two ranges on the 10.0.x.x subnet:



DHCP Address Pool



  • 10.0.0.x

  • 10.0.27.x

How do i do that?



Workaround



i suppose i could do it with exclusions:




  • Range: 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.255.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.0.11


  • Exclude: 10.0.0.151 - 10.0.0.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.1.0 - 10.0.26.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.27.0 - 10.0.27.11


  • Exclude: 10.0.27.151 - 10.0.26.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.28.0 - 10.0.255.255

But that idea is so dumb that I won't even bring it up.



Bonus Reading




  • How to add extra range of IP in DHCP of Windows Server 2008 R2 (archive)


  • Adding another IP Range to DHCP (archive)

  • KB255999 - Increasing the number of IP addresses on a subnet in DHCP Server

Bonus Chatter



How does DHCP work?



Dynamic host configuration protocol can be used to automatically configure network devices with information they need:



  • Network subnet mask (e.g. 255.255.0.0)

  • DNS server (e.g. 10.0.42.7, 10.0.13.29)

  • Domain name (e.g. stackoverexchange.com)

  • Default gateway (e.g. 10.0.241.1)

In addition to being able to configure host options, it can automatically give clients an IP address. The DHCP server is given a block of IP addresses it can assign to clients, e.g.:




  • 10.0.0.12 -10.0.0.100


  • 10.0.0.200 - 10.0.0.245


  • 10.0.3.100 - 10.0.3.200

And when a client shows up needed an IP address, it looks in it's available pool of addresses, picks one, and gives it to the machine:



  • 10.0.0.12 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.13 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.14 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.0.98 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.99 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.100 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.200 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.201 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.202 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.0.243 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.244 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.245 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.100 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.101 - Assigned to de-ad-be-ef-ba-ad (IANBOYD)

  • 10.0.3.102 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.3.198 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.199 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.200 - Unassigned

I want to add more ranges of IPs to the available pool of IPs to be assigned.



Other DHCP servers do it



Of course other DHCP servers can do this:



enter image description here



But i already know how to do it in other DHCP servers. I'm asking how to do it in the DHCP server that ships with Windows Server 2012.



If Windows Server 2012 DHCP server cannot do it: it's ok to say it:




It cannot be done; Windows Server 2012 does not support this feature that other DHCP servers support.




But i'm hoping it does support it. DHCP has been around a long time; and Microsoft has had a long time to get it right.










share|improve this question























  • Actually I believe your dumb solution is the answer. :) I guess a question might be, why be so complicated. Rarely ever are networks subnetted in to a single /16 network. It’s bad network design that is causing this issue.
    – Appleoddity
    1 hour ago











  • Superscoping isn't applicable here. A Super Scope would combine two or more "logically distinct" subnets into a single DHCP scope. What you're trying to do is to create a new scope that is technically encompassed by an existing scope.
    – joeqwerty
    28 mins ago














up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












Window Server 2012 DHCP server is currently configured as:




  • Subnet: 10.0.x.x (e.g. 10.0.0.0/16)


  • Dynamic IP Range: 10.0.0.12 - 10.0.0.120

enter image description here



This is done to limit dynamically assigned addresses to a small range on the subnet (and not overlap into other ranges).



I would like to add another address range to pool of available ranges that DHCP can pull from on our 10.0.x.x subnet:



DHCP Address Pool



  • 10.0.0.12 - 10.0.0.200

  • 10.0.27.12 - 10.0.27.150

enter image description here



Of course you can't do that because:



enter image description here



Of course it doesn't conflict; it's just being stubbon.



I want the DHCP server to offer addresses from a pool of two ranges on the 10.0.x.x subnet:



DHCP Address Pool



  • 10.0.0.x

  • 10.0.27.x

How do i do that?



Workaround



i suppose i could do it with exclusions:




  • Range: 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.255.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.0.11


  • Exclude: 10.0.0.151 - 10.0.0.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.1.0 - 10.0.26.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.27.0 - 10.0.27.11


  • Exclude: 10.0.27.151 - 10.0.26.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.28.0 - 10.0.255.255

But that idea is so dumb that I won't even bring it up.



Bonus Reading




  • How to add extra range of IP in DHCP of Windows Server 2008 R2 (archive)


  • Adding another IP Range to DHCP (archive)

  • KB255999 - Increasing the number of IP addresses on a subnet in DHCP Server

Bonus Chatter



How does DHCP work?



Dynamic host configuration protocol can be used to automatically configure network devices with information they need:



  • Network subnet mask (e.g. 255.255.0.0)

  • DNS server (e.g. 10.0.42.7, 10.0.13.29)

  • Domain name (e.g. stackoverexchange.com)

  • Default gateway (e.g. 10.0.241.1)

In addition to being able to configure host options, it can automatically give clients an IP address. The DHCP server is given a block of IP addresses it can assign to clients, e.g.:




  • 10.0.0.12 -10.0.0.100


  • 10.0.0.200 - 10.0.0.245


  • 10.0.3.100 - 10.0.3.200

And when a client shows up needed an IP address, it looks in it's available pool of addresses, picks one, and gives it to the machine:



  • 10.0.0.12 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.13 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.14 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.0.98 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.99 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.100 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.200 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.201 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.202 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.0.243 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.244 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.245 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.100 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.101 - Assigned to de-ad-be-ef-ba-ad (IANBOYD)

  • 10.0.3.102 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.3.198 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.199 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.200 - Unassigned

I want to add more ranges of IPs to the available pool of IPs to be assigned.



Other DHCP servers do it



Of course other DHCP servers can do this:



enter image description here



But i already know how to do it in other DHCP servers. I'm asking how to do it in the DHCP server that ships with Windows Server 2012.



If Windows Server 2012 DHCP server cannot do it: it's ok to say it:




It cannot be done; Windows Server 2012 does not support this feature that other DHCP servers support.




But i'm hoping it does support it. DHCP has been around a long time; and Microsoft has had a long time to get it right.










share|improve this question























  • Actually I believe your dumb solution is the answer. :) I guess a question might be, why be so complicated. Rarely ever are networks subnetted in to a single /16 network. It’s bad network design that is causing this issue.
    – Appleoddity
    1 hour ago











  • Superscoping isn't applicable here. A Super Scope would combine two or more "logically distinct" subnets into a single DHCP scope. What you're trying to do is to create a new scope that is technically encompassed by an existing scope.
    – joeqwerty
    28 mins ago












up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1






1





Window Server 2012 DHCP server is currently configured as:




  • Subnet: 10.0.x.x (e.g. 10.0.0.0/16)


  • Dynamic IP Range: 10.0.0.12 - 10.0.0.120

enter image description here



This is done to limit dynamically assigned addresses to a small range on the subnet (and not overlap into other ranges).



I would like to add another address range to pool of available ranges that DHCP can pull from on our 10.0.x.x subnet:



DHCP Address Pool



  • 10.0.0.12 - 10.0.0.200

  • 10.0.27.12 - 10.0.27.150

enter image description here



Of course you can't do that because:



enter image description here



Of course it doesn't conflict; it's just being stubbon.



I want the DHCP server to offer addresses from a pool of two ranges on the 10.0.x.x subnet:



DHCP Address Pool



  • 10.0.0.x

  • 10.0.27.x

How do i do that?



Workaround



i suppose i could do it with exclusions:




  • Range: 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.255.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.0.11


  • Exclude: 10.0.0.151 - 10.0.0.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.1.0 - 10.0.26.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.27.0 - 10.0.27.11


  • Exclude: 10.0.27.151 - 10.0.26.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.28.0 - 10.0.255.255

But that idea is so dumb that I won't even bring it up.



Bonus Reading




  • How to add extra range of IP in DHCP of Windows Server 2008 R2 (archive)


  • Adding another IP Range to DHCP (archive)

  • KB255999 - Increasing the number of IP addresses on a subnet in DHCP Server

Bonus Chatter



How does DHCP work?



Dynamic host configuration protocol can be used to automatically configure network devices with information they need:



  • Network subnet mask (e.g. 255.255.0.0)

  • DNS server (e.g. 10.0.42.7, 10.0.13.29)

  • Domain name (e.g. stackoverexchange.com)

  • Default gateway (e.g. 10.0.241.1)

In addition to being able to configure host options, it can automatically give clients an IP address. The DHCP server is given a block of IP addresses it can assign to clients, e.g.:




  • 10.0.0.12 -10.0.0.100


  • 10.0.0.200 - 10.0.0.245


  • 10.0.3.100 - 10.0.3.200

And when a client shows up needed an IP address, it looks in it's available pool of addresses, picks one, and gives it to the machine:



  • 10.0.0.12 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.13 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.14 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.0.98 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.99 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.100 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.200 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.201 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.202 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.0.243 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.244 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.245 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.100 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.101 - Assigned to de-ad-be-ef-ba-ad (IANBOYD)

  • 10.0.3.102 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.3.198 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.199 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.200 - Unassigned

I want to add more ranges of IPs to the available pool of IPs to be assigned.



Other DHCP servers do it



Of course other DHCP servers can do this:



enter image description here



But i already know how to do it in other DHCP servers. I'm asking how to do it in the DHCP server that ships with Windows Server 2012.



If Windows Server 2012 DHCP server cannot do it: it's ok to say it:




It cannot be done; Windows Server 2012 does not support this feature that other DHCP servers support.




But i'm hoping it does support it. DHCP has been around a long time; and Microsoft has had a long time to get it right.










share|improve this question















Window Server 2012 DHCP server is currently configured as:




  • Subnet: 10.0.x.x (e.g. 10.0.0.0/16)


  • Dynamic IP Range: 10.0.0.12 - 10.0.0.120

enter image description here



This is done to limit dynamically assigned addresses to a small range on the subnet (and not overlap into other ranges).



I would like to add another address range to pool of available ranges that DHCP can pull from on our 10.0.x.x subnet:



DHCP Address Pool



  • 10.0.0.12 - 10.0.0.200

  • 10.0.27.12 - 10.0.27.150

enter image description here



Of course you can't do that because:



enter image description here



Of course it doesn't conflict; it's just being stubbon.



I want the DHCP server to offer addresses from a pool of two ranges on the 10.0.x.x subnet:



DHCP Address Pool



  • 10.0.0.x

  • 10.0.27.x

How do i do that?



Workaround



i suppose i could do it with exclusions:




  • Range: 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.255.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.0.11


  • Exclude: 10.0.0.151 - 10.0.0.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.1.0 - 10.0.26.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.27.0 - 10.0.27.11


  • Exclude: 10.0.27.151 - 10.0.26.255


  • Exclude: 10.0.28.0 - 10.0.255.255

But that idea is so dumb that I won't even bring it up.



Bonus Reading




  • How to add extra range of IP in DHCP of Windows Server 2008 R2 (archive)


  • Adding another IP Range to DHCP (archive)

  • KB255999 - Increasing the number of IP addresses on a subnet in DHCP Server

Bonus Chatter



How does DHCP work?



Dynamic host configuration protocol can be used to automatically configure network devices with information they need:



  • Network subnet mask (e.g. 255.255.0.0)

  • DNS server (e.g. 10.0.42.7, 10.0.13.29)

  • Domain name (e.g. stackoverexchange.com)

  • Default gateway (e.g. 10.0.241.1)

In addition to being able to configure host options, it can automatically give clients an IP address. The DHCP server is given a block of IP addresses it can assign to clients, e.g.:




  • 10.0.0.12 -10.0.0.100


  • 10.0.0.200 - 10.0.0.245


  • 10.0.3.100 - 10.0.3.200

And when a client shows up needed an IP address, it looks in it's available pool of addresses, picks one, and gives it to the machine:



  • 10.0.0.12 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.13 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.14 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.0.98 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.99 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.100 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.200 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.201 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.202 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.0.243 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.244 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.0.245 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.100 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.101 - Assigned to de-ad-be-ef-ba-ad (IANBOYD)

  • 10.0.3.102 - Unassigned

  • ...

  • 10.0.3.198 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.199 - Unassigned

  • 10.0.3.200 - Unassigned

I want to add more ranges of IPs to the available pool of IPs to be assigned.



Other DHCP servers do it



Of course other DHCP servers can do this:



enter image description here



But i already know how to do it in other DHCP servers. I'm asking how to do it in the DHCP server that ships with Windows Server 2012.



If Windows Server 2012 DHCP server cannot do it: it's ok to say it:




It cannot be done; Windows Server 2012 does not support this feature that other DHCP servers support.




But i'm hoping it does support it. DHCP has been around a long time; and Microsoft has had a long time to get it right.







windows windows-server-2012 dhcp






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 mins ago

























asked 1 hour ago









Ian Boyd

3,009104466




3,009104466











  • Actually I believe your dumb solution is the answer. :) I guess a question might be, why be so complicated. Rarely ever are networks subnetted in to a single /16 network. It’s bad network design that is causing this issue.
    – Appleoddity
    1 hour ago











  • Superscoping isn't applicable here. A Super Scope would combine two or more "logically distinct" subnets into a single DHCP scope. What you're trying to do is to create a new scope that is technically encompassed by an existing scope.
    – joeqwerty
    28 mins ago
















  • Actually I believe your dumb solution is the answer. :) I guess a question might be, why be so complicated. Rarely ever are networks subnetted in to a single /16 network. It’s bad network design that is causing this issue.
    – Appleoddity
    1 hour ago











  • Superscoping isn't applicable here. A Super Scope would combine two or more "logically distinct" subnets into a single DHCP scope. What you're trying to do is to create a new scope that is technically encompassed by an existing scope.
    – joeqwerty
    28 mins ago















Actually I believe your dumb solution is the answer. :) I guess a question might be, why be so complicated. Rarely ever are networks subnetted in to a single /16 network. It’s bad network design that is causing this issue.
– Appleoddity
1 hour ago





Actually I believe your dumb solution is the answer. :) I guess a question might be, why be so complicated. Rarely ever are networks subnetted in to a single /16 network. It’s bad network design that is causing this issue.
– Appleoddity
1 hour ago













Superscoping isn't applicable here. A Super Scope would combine two or more "logically distinct" subnets into a single DHCP scope. What you're trying to do is to create a new scope that is technically encompassed by an existing scope.
– joeqwerty
28 mins ago




Superscoping isn't applicable here. A Super Scope would combine two or more "logically distinct" subnets into a single DHCP scope. What you're trying to do is to create a new scope that is technically encompassed by an existing scope.
– joeqwerty
28 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote














Of course it doesn't conflict; it's just being stubborn.




It does conflict with your existing scope. Your proposed new scopes are encompassed by your existing scope. In order to do what you want you would need to change the subnet mask of your existing scope so that it's range doesn't encompass the proposed new scopes.



Addendum



Based on your comment to my answer:



I don't know anything about any other DHCP implementation, but it's doubtful to me that any other implementation could do what you want. Saying that it's a "Windows" shortcoming is probably erroneous. How would the DHCP server know to assign an address from your second scope, which is encompassed by your first scope, instead of assigning an address from the first scope? How would it make that differentiation? I'm honestly curious to know how that would work, how you think it should work, and if any other DHCP implementation supports such a configuration.






share|improve this answer






















  • What i mean is that there's no reason a DHCP server cannot assign IPs from any ranges i desire. It's a design limitation of how the DHCP server in Windows was implemented. But nothing is conceptually wrong when thinking about dynamic host configuration where the server cannot assign from two disjoint ranges. It's just being stubborn.
    – Ian Boyd
    1 hour ago










  • joe is correct. Ian, your initial scope is a 255.255.0.0 which encompasses the desired x.x.y.y scope of addresses ie. your 10.0.27.X range.. what you are wanting is to have 2 scopes with a /24 range not a /16 range.
    – George
    46 mins ago










  • @George My concern if i created two scopes i) 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.0 and ii) 10.0.27.0/255.255.255.0 is that DHCP clients would be assigned a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 rather than 255.255.0.0, and that dynamically assigned clients would not be able to talk outside of their 255.255.255.0 range (e.g. would not be able to talk to fixed ip set aside in fixed ranges). DHCP needs to correctly assign the subnet of the network (10.0.0.0/24), and pull from IP ranges i suggest. If scopes can solve that problem: excellent. Phrase it in the form of an answer and you'll get an accept.
    – Ian Boyd
    38 mins ago











  • @IanBoyd You need to route between your subnet, some layer 3 switch can even do it and some router can have multiple IP assigned to them to route inter subnet.
    – yagmoth555♦
    30 mins ago






  • 1




    @IanBoyd regarding broadcast messages and related communications I can understand your concerns. As joe just modified his answer to also include a valid point, "What decides who gets an address from which scope?" Are you intending to do VLAN tagging or limit a specific group of users to obtain addresses from this new scope? Seems there are more questions that come out of the network design here than an easy answer to scope conflicts.
    – George
    30 mins ago










Your Answer







StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f935279%2fhow-to-add-another-address-range-to-dhcp-server%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
3
down vote














Of course it doesn't conflict; it's just being stubborn.




It does conflict with your existing scope. Your proposed new scopes are encompassed by your existing scope. In order to do what you want you would need to change the subnet mask of your existing scope so that it's range doesn't encompass the proposed new scopes.



Addendum



Based on your comment to my answer:



I don't know anything about any other DHCP implementation, but it's doubtful to me that any other implementation could do what you want. Saying that it's a "Windows" shortcoming is probably erroneous. How would the DHCP server know to assign an address from your second scope, which is encompassed by your first scope, instead of assigning an address from the first scope? How would it make that differentiation? I'm honestly curious to know how that would work, how you think it should work, and if any other DHCP implementation supports such a configuration.






share|improve this answer






















  • What i mean is that there's no reason a DHCP server cannot assign IPs from any ranges i desire. It's a design limitation of how the DHCP server in Windows was implemented. But nothing is conceptually wrong when thinking about dynamic host configuration where the server cannot assign from two disjoint ranges. It's just being stubborn.
    – Ian Boyd
    1 hour ago










  • joe is correct. Ian, your initial scope is a 255.255.0.0 which encompasses the desired x.x.y.y scope of addresses ie. your 10.0.27.X range.. what you are wanting is to have 2 scopes with a /24 range not a /16 range.
    – George
    46 mins ago










  • @George My concern if i created two scopes i) 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.0 and ii) 10.0.27.0/255.255.255.0 is that DHCP clients would be assigned a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 rather than 255.255.0.0, and that dynamically assigned clients would not be able to talk outside of their 255.255.255.0 range (e.g. would not be able to talk to fixed ip set aside in fixed ranges). DHCP needs to correctly assign the subnet of the network (10.0.0.0/24), and pull from IP ranges i suggest. If scopes can solve that problem: excellent. Phrase it in the form of an answer and you'll get an accept.
    – Ian Boyd
    38 mins ago











  • @IanBoyd You need to route between your subnet, some layer 3 switch can even do it and some router can have multiple IP assigned to them to route inter subnet.
    – yagmoth555♦
    30 mins ago






  • 1




    @IanBoyd regarding broadcast messages and related communications I can understand your concerns. As joe just modified his answer to also include a valid point, "What decides who gets an address from which scope?" Are you intending to do VLAN tagging or limit a specific group of users to obtain addresses from this new scope? Seems there are more questions that come out of the network design here than an easy answer to scope conflicts.
    – George
    30 mins ago














up vote
3
down vote














Of course it doesn't conflict; it's just being stubborn.




It does conflict with your existing scope. Your proposed new scopes are encompassed by your existing scope. In order to do what you want you would need to change the subnet mask of your existing scope so that it's range doesn't encompass the proposed new scopes.



Addendum



Based on your comment to my answer:



I don't know anything about any other DHCP implementation, but it's doubtful to me that any other implementation could do what you want. Saying that it's a "Windows" shortcoming is probably erroneous. How would the DHCP server know to assign an address from your second scope, which is encompassed by your first scope, instead of assigning an address from the first scope? How would it make that differentiation? I'm honestly curious to know how that would work, how you think it should work, and if any other DHCP implementation supports such a configuration.






share|improve this answer






















  • What i mean is that there's no reason a DHCP server cannot assign IPs from any ranges i desire. It's a design limitation of how the DHCP server in Windows was implemented. But nothing is conceptually wrong when thinking about dynamic host configuration where the server cannot assign from two disjoint ranges. It's just being stubborn.
    – Ian Boyd
    1 hour ago










  • joe is correct. Ian, your initial scope is a 255.255.0.0 which encompasses the desired x.x.y.y scope of addresses ie. your 10.0.27.X range.. what you are wanting is to have 2 scopes with a /24 range not a /16 range.
    – George
    46 mins ago










  • @George My concern if i created two scopes i) 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.0 and ii) 10.0.27.0/255.255.255.0 is that DHCP clients would be assigned a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 rather than 255.255.0.0, and that dynamically assigned clients would not be able to talk outside of their 255.255.255.0 range (e.g. would not be able to talk to fixed ip set aside in fixed ranges). DHCP needs to correctly assign the subnet of the network (10.0.0.0/24), and pull from IP ranges i suggest. If scopes can solve that problem: excellent. Phrase it in the form of an answer and you'll get an accept.
    – Ian Boyd
    38 mins ago











  • @IanBoyd You need to route between your subnet, some layer 3 switch can even do it and some router can have multiple IP assigned to them to route inter subnet.
    – yagmoth555♦
    30 mins ago






  • 1




    @IanBoyd regarding broadcast messages and related communications I can understand your concerns. As joe just modified his answer to also include a valid point, "What decides who gets an address from which scope?" Are you intending to do VLAN tagging or limit a specific group of users to obtain addresses from this new scope? Seems there are more questions that come out of the network design here than an easy answer to scope conflicts.
    – George
    30 mins ago












up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote










Of course it doesn't conflict; it's just being stubborn.




It does conflict with your existing scope. Your proposed new scopes are encompassed by your existing scope. In order to do what you want you would need to change the subnet mask of your existing scope so that it's range doesn't encompass the proposed new scopes.



Addendum



Based on your comment to my answer:



I don't know anything about any other DHCP implementation, but it's doubtful to me that any other implementation could do what you want. Saying that it's a "Windows" shortcoming is probably erroneous. How would the DHCP server know to assign an address from your second scope, which is encompassed by your first scope, instead of assigning an address from the first scope? How would it make that differentiation? I'm honestly curious to know how that would work, how you think it should work, and if any other DHCP implementation supports such a configuration.






share|improve this answer















Of course it doesn't conflict; it's just being stubborn.




It does conflict with your existing scope. Your proposed new scopes are encompassed by your existing scope. In order to do what you want you would need to change the subnet mask of your existing scope so that it's range doesn't encompass the proposed new scopes.



Addendum



Based on your comment to my answer:



I don't know anything about any other DHCP implementation, but it's doubtful to me that any other implementation could do what you want. Saying that it's a "Windows" shortcoming is probably erroneous. How would the DHCP server know to assign an address from your second scope, which is encompassed by your first scope, instead of assigning an address from the first scope? How would it make that differentiation? I'm honestly curious to know how that would work, how you think it should work, and if any other DHCP implementation supports such a configuration.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 36 mins ago

























answered 1 hour ago









joeqwerty

93.9k362146




93.9k362146











  • What i mean is that there's no reason a DHCP server cannot assign IPs from any ranges i desire. It's a design limitation of how the DHCP server in Windows was implemented. But nothing is conceptually wrong when thinking about dynamic host configuration where the server cannot assign from two disjoint ranges. It's just being stubborn.
    – Ian Boyd
    1 hour ago










  • joe is correct. Ian, your initial scope is a 255.255.0.0 which encompasses the desired x.x.y.y scope of addresses ie. your 10.0.27.X range.. what you are wanting is to have 2 scopes with a /24 range not a /16 range.
    – George
    46 mins ago










  • @George My concern if i created two scopes i) 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.0 and ii) 10.0.27.0/255.255.255.0 is that DHCP clients would be assigned a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 rather than 255.255.0.0, and that dynamically assigned clients would not be able to talk outside of their 255.255.255.0 range (e.g. would not be able to talk to fixed ip set aside in fixed ranges). DHCP needs to correctly assign the subnet of the network (10.0.0.0/24), and pull from IP ranges i suggest. If scopes can solve that problem: excellent. Phrase it in the form of an answer and you'll get an accept.
    – Ian Boyd
    38 mins ago











  • @IanBoyd You need to route between your subnet, some layer 3 switch can even do it and some router can have multiple IP assigned to them to route inter subnet.
    – yagmoth555♦
    30 mins ago






  • 1




    @IanBoyd regarding broadcast messages and related communications I can understand your concerns. As joe just modified his answer to also include a valid point, "What decides who gets an address from which scope?" Are you intending to do VLAN tagging or limit a specific group of users to obtain addresses from this new scope? Seems there are more questions that come out of the network design here than an easy answer to scope conflicts.
    – George
    30 mins ago
















  • What i mean is that there's no reason a DHCP server cannot assign IPs from any ranges i desire. It's a design limitation of how the DHCP server in Windows was implemented. But nothing is conceptually wrong when thinking about dynamic host configuration where the server cannot assign from two disjoint ranges. It's just being stubborn.
    – Ian Boyd
    1 hour ago










  • joe is correct. Ian, your initial scope is a 255.255.0.0 which encompasses the desired x.x.y.y scope of addresses ie. your 10.0.27.X range.. what you are wanting is to have 2 scopes with a /24 range not a /16 range.
    – George
    46 mins ago










  • @George My concern if i created two scopes i) 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.0 and ii) 10.0.27.0/255.255.255.0 is that DHCP clients would be assigned a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 rather than 255.255.0.0, and that dynamically assigned clients would not be able to talk outside of their 255.255.255.0 range (e.g. would not be able to talk to fixed ip set aside in fixed ranges). DHCP needs to correctly assign the subnet of the network (10.0.0.0/24), and pull from IP ranges i suggest. If scopes can solve that problem: excellent. Phrase it in the form of an answer and you'll get an accept.
    – Ian Boyd
    38 mins ago











  • @IanBoyd You need to route between your subnet, some layer 3 switch can even do it and some router can have multiple IP assigned to them to route inter subnet.
    – yagmoth555♦
    30 mins ago






  • 1




    @IanBoyd regarding broadcast messages and related communications I can understand your concerns. As joe just modified his answer to also include a valid point, "What decides who gets an address from which scope?" Are you intending to do VLAN tagging or limit a specific group of users to obtain addresses from this new scope? Seems there are more questions that come out of the network design here than an easy answer to scope conflicts.
    – George
    30 mins ago















What i mean is that there's no reason a DHCP server cannot assign IPs from any ranges i desire. It's a design limitation of how the DHCP server in Windows was implemented. But nothing is conceptually wrong when thinking about dynamic host configuration where the server cannot assign from two disjoint ranges. It's just being stubborn.
– Ian Boyd
1 hour ago




What i mean is that there's no reason a DHCP server cannot assign IPs from any ranges i desire. It's a design limitation of how the DHCP server in Windows was implemented. But nothing is conceptually wrong when thinking about dynamic host configuration where the server cannot assign from two disjoint ranges. It's just being stubborn.
– Ian Boyd
1 hour ago












joe is correct. Ian, your initial scope is a 255.255.0.0 which encompasses the desired x.x.y.y scope of addresses ie. your 10.0.27.X range.. what you are wanting is to have 2 scopes with a /24 range not a /16 range.
– George
46 mins ago




joe is correct. Ian, your initial scope is a 255.255.0.0 which encompasses the desired x.x.y.y scope of addresses ie. your 10.0.27.X range.. what you are wanting is to have 2 scopes with a /24 range not a /16 range.
– George
46 mins ago












@George My concern if i created two scopes i) 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.0 and ii) 10.0.27.0/255.255.255.0 is that DHCP clients would be assigned a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 rather than 255.255.0.0, and that dynamically assigned clients would not be able to talk outside of their 255.255.255.0 range (e.g. would not be able to talk to fixed ip set aside in fixed ranges). DHCP needs to correctly assign the subnet of the network (10.0.0.0/24), and pull from IP ranges i suggest. If scopes can solve that problem: excellent. Phrase it in the form of an answer and you'll get an accept.
– Ian Boyd
38 mins ago





@George My concern if i created two scopes i) 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.0 and ii) 10.0.27.0/255.255.255.0 is that DHCP clients would be assigned a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 rather than 255.255.0.0, and that dynamically assigned clients would not be able to talk outside of their 255.255.255.0 range (e.g. would not be able to talk to fixed ip set aside in fixed ranges). DHCP needs to correctly assign the subnet of the network (10.0.0.0/24), and pull from IP ranges i suggest. If scopes can solve that problem: excellent. Phrase it in the form of an answer and you'll get an accept.
– Ian Boyd
38 mins ago













@IanBoyd You need to route between your subnet, some layer 3 switch can even do it and some router can have multiple IP assigned to them to route inter subnet.
– yagmoth555♦
30 mins ago




@IanBoyd You need to route between your subnet, some layer 3 switch can even do it and some router can have multiple IP assigned to them to route inter subnet.
– yagmoth555♦
30 mins ago




1




1




@IanBoyd regarding broadcast messages and related communications I can understand your concerns. As joe just modified his answer to also include a valid point, "What decides who gets an address from which scope?" Are you intending to do VLAN tagging or limit a specific group of users to obtain addresses from this new scope? Seems there are more questions that come out of the network design here than an easy answer to scope conflicts.
– George
30 mins ago




@IanBoyd regarding broadcast messages and related communications I can understand your concerns. As joe just modified his answer to also include a valid point, "What decides who gets an address from which scope?" Are you intending to do VLAN tagging or limit a specific group of users to obtain addresses from this new scope? Seems there are more questions that come out of the network design here than an easy answer to scope conflicts.
– George
30 mins ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f935279%2fhow-to-add-another-address-range-to-dhcp-server%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

One-line joke