3

I have inherited a DHCP server set up with a very small address pool and a number of reserved static addresses.

Originally a small network, set up by non professionals, we are now running out of address space. The address pool is quite small (x.x.x.110-200) and is over 85% full. Because of the bountiful riches of address space, the static reservations are liberally spread across x.x.x.1-100 with large gaps in between.

My question is "in server 2003 R2 are address pools and reservations required to be mutually exclusive or can they overlap and the reservations are given precedence/priority/excluded from the pool?"

IE, can I expand the address pool to x.x.x.50-250 and not be concerned about the half dozen machines scattered between .50 and .110 or do I need to move those reservations down to the mostly empty .30-50 range and then expand the address pool?

datakid
  • 349
  • 4
  • 17

1 Answers1

3

Reservations can be defined that overlap the address pool(s). They take precedence over dynamic entries.

However, the reservations don't even need to fall within an existing address pool. For example, if you setup a scope which was 10.80.0.0/16, and your address pools spanned 10.80.0.1 thru 10.80.200.254, you could still have a reservation, say, 10.80.210.10.

Hope that makes sense.

Finally, I believe (from memory), you can expand an address pool with no disruption - you just can't shrink one.

Simon Catlin
  • 5,232
  • 3
  • 17
  • 20