Mixing
How to add another address range to DHCP server
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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
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
Of course you can't do that because:
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.:
10.0.0.12-10.0.0.10010.0.0.200-10.0.0.24510.0.3.100-10.0.3.200
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:
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
asked 1 hour ago
Ian Boyd
3,009104466
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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
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
Of course you can't do that because:
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.:
10.0.0.12-10.0.0.10010.0.0.200-10.0.0.24510.0.3.100-10.0.3.200
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:
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
asked 1 hour ago
Ian Boyd
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
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
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
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
Of course you can't do that because:
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.:
10.0.0.12-10.0.0.10010.0.0.200-10.0.0.24510.0.3.100-10.0.3.200
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:
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
asked 1 hour ago
Ian Boyd
3,009104466
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
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
Of course you can't do that because:
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.:
10.0.0.12-10.0.0.10010.0.0.200-10.0.0.24510.0.3.100-10.0.3.200
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:
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
windows windows-server-2012 dhcp
asked 1 hour ago
Ian Boyd
3,009104466
asked 1 hour ago
Ian Boyd
3,009104466
edited 3 mins ago
asked 1 hour ago
Ian Boyd
3,009104466
asked 1 hour ago
Ian Boyd
3,009104466
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
add a comment |Â
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
add a comment |Â
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.
answered 1 hour ago
joeqwerty
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
 |Â
show 1 more comment
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.
answered 1 hour ago
joeqwerty
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
 |Â
show 1 more comment
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.
answered 1 hour ago
joeqwerty
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
 |Â
show 1 more comment
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.
answered 1 hour ago
joeqwerty
93.9k362146
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.
answered 1 hour ago
joeqwerty
93.9k362146
edited 36 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
joeqwerty
93.9k362146
answered 1 hour ago
joeqwerty
93.9k362146
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
 |Â
show 1 more comment
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
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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