DHCP Windows server 2008

sizeon

In real life, is DHCP configured on Windows server?

Zartanasaurus

Yes .

sizeon

Wait so not on a router?

Slowhand

In most environments I've been in, routers have been used as DHCP relays, but not as primary DHCP servers. The reason has always been that an OS-based DHCP server gives you more control and generally lets you get a better view of what's happening with your scope. Seeing as how Windows Server, for example, lets you put DHCP, DNS, AD Users and Computers, GPOs, etc., in one MMC for easy access, it's little wonder why it'd be so popular to do it this way.

CodeBlox

On our network, the end user workstations pull their DHCP leases from a windows server. The Cisco VOIP phones however pull their DHCP leases from the local routers. The routers do have helper addresses configured to direct the workstations to the proper DHCP server back at corporate too.

sizeon

ok, but windows server is not used as a router in real life, right?

Slowhand

Heh, I have yet to see that. Microsoft touts Windows Server as having the capability of doing so, and there are plenty of Linux users who swear up and down that they can build a box that'll be more efficient than anything Cisco or Juniper sells, but companies and individuals tend to buy routers made by network equipment companies, not software companies.

elTorito

There are ways to make a Windows server act as a makeshift router, but no, typically that task should be left to a dedicated device.

Zartanasaurus

Slowhand wrote: »

Heh, I have yet to see that. Microsoft touts Windows Server as having the capability of doing so, and there are plenty of Linux users who swear up and down that they can build a box that'll be more efficient than anything Cisco or Juniper sells, but companies and individuals tend to buy routers made by network equipment companies, not software companies.

Of course, those network equipment companies might be running FreeBSD under the hood anyway, like Citrix and Juniper.

Slowhand

Indeed, some companies' software is based on FreeBSD, Linux, etc., but it's not just an off-the-shelf server with a standard install, is the point. Juniper, Cisco, SonicWall, Palo Alto Networks, Barracuda Networks, and others, design their equipment with networking in mind. I'd be very skeptical of anyone who tells you they can build something more efficient than any of those companies, out of their garage or work-lab, without the same multi-million-dollar research teams and resources behind them.

PurpleIT

sizeon wrote: »

ok, but windows server is not used as a router in real life, right?

At one time, in a serious pinch, yeah for a little while... but generally no.

GAngel

In a large enterprise environment it would be for layered security that you wouldn't have dhcp on a gateway device. One less attack vector etc etc.

ptilsen

Slowhand wrote: »

Heh, I have yet to see that. Microsoft touts Windows Server as having the capability of doing so

Actually, since 2008, Microsoft removed OSPF support and explicitly states in MS Press training material that they realized large-scale software routing was not a customer requirement and as such is not longer supported. Microsoft is not pushing Windows Server as being a capable routing platform.

To the original question, no, Windows routers are extremely uncommon in production. Since RIP, static routing, and third-party software are the only options, large-scale Windows server routing is essentially non-existent. Really, non-hardware solutions in general are very rare in production.

discount81

Everywhere I worked in Windows environments, yes DHCP was based from windows.

Personally I find it does a perfectly fine job.

rchase

@CodeBlox


Interesting that youve got VoIP router pools but workstation windows scopes. In my lab environment last week I set up a Windows SBS 2011 server to perform DNS for my CUCM cluster and AD synchronization and figured I might as throw in DHCP as well. I went to configure option 150 (TFTP server IP address), and it was missing. Option 66 (DNS name of TFTP server lookup) was available so I used it instead but was dismayed that I could only have 1 option 66 (no backup TFTP servers could be configured) and that it was DNS reliant .... Is this just a limitation of SBS? Seems odd .. I used SBS because Im more familar with it, certified in it, but I should probably install the full 2008 r2

jibbajabba

Nope, it works just fine. Windows just has a limited set of pre-defined options but you can easily create new ones.

Simply right-click IPv4 / Add Predefined Options



And hit "Add" to add your option 150


(Data Type would be "IP Address")

rchase

@jibbajabba

THANK YOU

I thought it would be an odd thing to limit in SBS ...

DevilWAH

I find the main reason for using a windows (or Linux) bases DHCP server is it allows you easy central address management. And allows you to push day to day operation tasks to the ops team where there might not be a in depth understanding of routers .

I have been trying to get the IPAM running in server 2012, which ties DHCP and DNS management together, doesn't have the feature sets of the big boys bu for a medium size organisation it looks like a nice solution.

jibbajabba

^^ That and Reservations are just a mouseclick away

@rchase : You're welcome

DevilWAH

one thing to be wary of in windows DHCP is that reservation names will get over written by the hostname when an address is leased. they are just place holder names. if you need to remember the name then add it in the description field.

PurpleIT

DevilWAH wrote: »

one thing to be wary of in windows DHCP is that reservation names will get over written by the hostname when an address is leased. they are just place holder names. if you need to remember the name then add it in the description field.

It is also less than friendly if you should have some sort of IP address conflict. Seeing BAD_ADDRESS has ruined my day more than once.

DevilWAH

PurpleIT wrote: »

It is also less than friendly if you should have some sort of IP address conflict. Seeing BAD_ADDRESS has ruined my day more than once.

All this is telling you is that an IP address in its scope, is already in use on the network. its just saying it knows the address is in user and will no longer try to lease it to a client. This is much better than not checking an going ahead to lease the address and cause multiply address being in use surely.

PurpleIT

DevilWAH wrote: »

All this is telling you is that an IP address in its scope, is already in use on the network. its just saying it knows the address is in user and will no longer try to lease it to a client. This is much better than not checking an going ahead to lease the address and cause multiply address being in use surely.

True, but it overwrites the MAC and Host Name which can make it harder than it should be to restore your configuration. It can also get out of sync when trying to update/delete records and throw some truly useless error messages. I am not saying to is a POS, but there are days I curse it.