Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DHCP Management Across a Diversified Network?

Posted by timothy on from the send-that-packet-that-way dept.

ET Admin writes "I work for a small Wireless ISP, where we are deploying new network hardware to allow for growth and contain broadcast traffic. All routing/switching equipment is Cisco. We use Linux stand-alone boxes and VMs (running on Win 2003 boxes). We have decided on a hybrid VLAN layout where we have certain VLANs limited by location, and other VLANs that are global across the network. And I want DHCP served across it all. Does anyone have experience with IPAM software that handles multiple DHCP servers? Our network is small so spending a couple grand is overkill at this point. Any recomendations to help me decide between serving DHCP from the Nix boxes, or from the Cisco gear? Knowing that a single DHCP server will handle from 100-500 hosts."

66 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. DHCP Relaying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    setup DHCP Relaying on the switches to forward/relay all dhcp request across the vlans and subnets to one (or two) dhcp servers

    1. Re:DHCP Relaying by TaliesinWI · · Score: 3, Informative

      Done in one. You can even train ISC DHCP to give out different pools based on the primary IP address of the gateway for a particular VLAN. At that point all you have to worry about are keeping the pools "fed".

    2. Re:DHCP Relaying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      DHCP Relay Agent in Cisco Routers

      Cisco Routers support DHCP Relay Agents with ip helper-address command. To enable the ip helper-address on an interface that will receive client BOOTP/DHCP broadcasts.

      From the Global configuration mode,

      Router(config)# interface fa 0/0

      Router(config-if)# ip helper-addres 10.10.10.1

      Router(config-if)# ip helper-addres 10.10.10.2

    3. Re:DHCP Relaying by oatworm · · Score: 1

      That's what I'm thinking, too. Also, make sure conflict detection is turned on. Serving DHCP isn't particularly processor-intensive, so I doubt it'll matter much if you're hosting it from your *NIX boxes or from your Cisco equipment.

    4. Re:DHCP Relaying by cr0nj0b · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or two dhcp servers. Just in case the path to the first dhcp server is unavailable

      http://www.madboa.com/geek/dhcp-failover/

    5. Re:DHCP Relaying by Curien · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is definitely the way to go. If for some reason you cannot do this (as was once the case for me*), you can set up a PC on the network segment to act as a DHCP relay (the ISC DHCP distribution comes with a relay agent). On a network where we had more control, we set up a tunnel between the routers to forward the DHCP packets.

      * The network involved military encryption devices which could not be configured to forward broadcast packets. I put together a Linux system that booted from a floppy, used arping to figure out the IP address of the router (to determine which network segment it was on), read a config file from the floppy that contained the segment-specific settings, and started the dhcrelay process. Since the system ran entirely from a ramdisk, the security office allowed us to leave it on even when the area was secured.

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    6. Re:DHCP Relaying by ET+Admin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am definitely leaning this way. I currently have 2 hosts on the new network, and I just set them up as DHCP pools on the cisco gear to get them up and running, which got me looking at the capabilities of the Cisco gear. DHCP databases served via TFTP to all the field routers (3550's serving DHCP) was the other option I was looking at, but using ip helper to point to a central linux box sure seems easier. One of my main goals in this design is to limit broadcasts outside of each subnet, and ip helper obviously punches a hole in that philosophy. I can, and I will limit the protocols that ip helper transfers. I am thrilled to be getting all these suggestions and other ideas. Thanks

    7. Re:DHCP Relaying by Curien · · Score: 3, Informative

      One of my main goals in this design is to limit broadcasts outside of each subnet, and ip helper obviously punches a hole in that philosophy.

      ip helper doesn't forward as broadcasts. When the router on the host's segment detects the broadcast DHCP request, it forwards it directly to the next hop (just like any router does with a non-broadcast packet).

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    8. Re:DHCP Relaying by Moxon · · Score: 1

      We're using ip helper forwarding to two ISC dhcp3 servers (on linux) with a load balance / failover setup. Works just dandy for a few thousand users and 200+ subnets.

      Separate pools and subnets per vlan and all that stuff, of course. I'm sure there are howtos on the web..

  2. I have the solution you need... by poptix_work · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cisco+dhcp+relay&l=1

    You can easily run hundreds of thousands of hosts off a single DHCP server. It is not cpu intensive particularly if you have a decent lease duration.

    --
    Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.
    1. Re:I have the solution you need... by rmadmin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I concur.. I have over 2000 hosts covered with my DHCP server, 24 hour lease, the server never breaks 0.00 loads. We also use DHCP-Relay in about 5 places across the network. Its tasty :)

      --


      Can all fish swim?
    2. Re:I have the solution you need... by poptix_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, here's a small sample config for serving a particular pool on a particular interface (which would be the vlan "interface" on the Cisco), easily found on Google:

      class "vlan1234"
      {
                      match if
                      (
                                      (binary-to-ascii(16, 8, ".", option agent.remote-id) = "0.15.63.ab.52.16") # This is the MAC of the switch
                                      and
                                      (binary-to-ascii (10,8, ".", option agent.circuit-id) = "0.0.0.47") # This is the interface number
                      );
      }

      pool {
                      range 192.168.100.5 192.168.100.254;
                      max-lease-time 300;

                      option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
                      option routers 192.168.100.1;
                      allow members of "vlan1234";
      }

      --
      Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.
    3. Re:I have the solution you need... by calmofthestorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's interesting because lmgtfy is as much about knowing waht to google as to google it. Oftne if I ask a dumb quesiton, all I need are google keywords.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    4. Re:I have the solution you need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's interesting because lmgtfy is as much about knowing waht to google as to google it. Oftne if I ask a dumb quesiton, all I need are google keywords.

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=English+spelling+and+grammar+lessons

    5. Re:I have the solution you need... by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      We have about 1400 regular hosts and a large migrant (student notebook) population. ie. more hosts than IPs so we have a much shorty lease time (30 minutes I think) and dhcp relay. The machine is bored to tears. Not sure of the 100-500 hosts line in the post.

    6. Re:I have the solution you need... by Helmholtz · · Score: 1

      Even better, run it from a [open]solaris zone.

      --
      RFC2119
    7. Re:I have the solution you need... by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      I'll do better than that. ~10 years ago I visited the racks of a major cable internet provider in the Netherlands. There stood a lonely old Pentium 3 tower, in fading brown/beige colors, between the fancy rackmounted Cisco equipment, providing DHCP for a ~750,000 resident area in which that provider was basically the monopoly for cable internet.

      True story.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    8. Re:I have the solution you need... by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      That probably worked just fine, too.

      Constrast that to the horror story I found at an ISP. I was the manager of the technical staff (servers and network) at a medium-sized ISP that went through a rash of acquisitions before being acquired itself. One ISP we bought had a Pentium 133 in an AT desktop case with 256 megabytes of RAM. It ran NT 4, and it did pretty much everything but offer the network ports. It was serving primary and secondary RADIUS for auth and logging. It did primary and secondary DNS, both authoritative for the domains and caching for the customers. I used IMail for all mail (MX, outbound SMTP, POP3, and mail storage). It also hosted the ISP's web site. There were about 3,000 customers on that little hunk of junk. Once we migrated them over to our systems, we actually had calls thanking us for speeding up authentication. It was that noticeable.

  3. phpdhcpadmin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Someone in house here created it, and we use it across multiple vlans from a Gentoo box. It uses the ISC DHCPD server.

    http://phpdhcpadmin.sourceforge.net

    1. Re:phpdhcpadmin by ET+Admin · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip. We currently use the ISC DHCPd on a Centos VM and this will allow me to start with our current conf files.

  4. Go IPV6 and leave DHCP in the dust by goffster · · Score: 1, Interesting

    DHCP not used in IPV6 protocol

    1. Re:Go IPV6 and leave DHCP in the dust by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      4294967296 addresses should be enough for anyone.

    2. Re:Go IPV6 and leave DHCP in the dust by Imagix · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ahem... never heard of RFC 3315? DHCPv6 still has a place in an IPv6 network.

    3. Re:Go IPV6 and leave DHCP in the dust by Spookticus · · Score: 2, Funny

      whys that, IPV6 thinks its too good for DHCP?

    4. Re:Go IPV6 and leave DHCP in the dust by mysidia · · Score: 1

      There's always DHCPv6.

    5. Re:Go IPV6 and leave DHCP in the dust by quazee · · Score: 1

      Even if you go IPv6, you still need to provide at least a NAT-ed IPv4 address or a transparent HTTP/DNS proxy.
      And the 'transparent proxy' solution will break everything except HTTP, most notably, HTTPS.
      You can communicate with IPv6 hosts from an IPv4 address (via 6to4 encapsulation).
      But you cannot communicate with IPv4-only hosts using an IPv6 address without a proxy.

      --
      throw new SuccessException("Sig read successfully");
    6. Re:Go IPV6 and leave DHCP in the dust by miscellaneous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, because as a wireless ISP you can totally require your clients to support IPv6. Wait, no, that's not right.

      --
      -k. ^-^ ^D
  5. Use the Unix/Linux boxes.... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, do not use the Cisco gear to handle the DHCP. There are several ways to handle this, either have a system with an interface on all the networks, or setup your Cisco gear to forward the HDCP requests to the one subnet that does have your system.

    With using Unix/Linux you can setup failover servers so that if one does not respond, the other will take over the requests and that way you will not lose DHCP across your entire network due to hardware/software issues on a single system. Go read up on dhcpd, it is not too difficult to understand, and is really probably your best low cost solution.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:Use the Unix/Linux boxes.... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Agreed. ISC dhcpd is so trivial to setup, and places hardly any load on the system at all, that I don't use why you wouldn't use it in that case. I've personally ran dhcpd servers serving 1,000 nodes or more without a lick of trouble running on old PCs that were just lying around. We had a couple of failover servers on each VLAN and ultimately we never had any DHCP downtime, ever. Well, actually we did once, but that's because the POS Cisco switch the DHCP servers were plugged into totally failed for reasons we were never able to ascertain, other than the fact the hardware simply didn't work anymore. :)

      --
      My blog
  6. You need Cisco gear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You need to use DHCP snooping to block rogue DHCP servers and block packets with forged MAC addresses on untrusted interfaces

    You need IP source guard to block forced IP addresses on untrusted interfaces

    Otherwise, you are at risk of DOS and/or compromise from malicious users, and at risk of instability and insanity caused by users who plug a rogue DHCP server (even something as simple as the LAN side of a Linksys gateway) into your gear.

    1. Re:You need Cisco gear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You can do this with Procurve too... and Enterasys.

      Don't be a crony ;)

    2. Re:You need Cisco gear by solevita · · Score: 1

      HP Procurve equipment supports both DHCP helper addresses and DHCP snooping. So yes, you need to do it properly, but you can do it properly (and with a free lifetime warranty) without Cisco.

    3. Re:You need Cisco gear by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not an absolute. You should use VLAN segmentation (and possibly private VLANs) to separate untrusted networks.

      That way if there is a rogue DHCP server, its effects are isolated to the untrusted LAN it came from.

      The L2 filtering features you are thinking of are actually inadequate to stop a sophisticated attacker, because those features can be defeated, or don't address all possible Layer 2 spoofing and traffic hijacking tricks.

    4. Re:You need Cisco gear by ET+Admin · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip. We require our customers to have their own routers, and so far our wireless devices have protected us from this. But I did learn the hard way that VMWare Server enables DHCP by default when initially installed.

    5. Re:You need Cisco gear by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Why the hell should he buy new equipment? He's already got Cisco, and Cisco does it.

      Man, do you normally buy new gear that does exactly what your current gear does, just because the new gear has a cheaper price tag on it? What a complete waste of money.

      You sound like a project manager for my company, only they usually go from less expensive perfectly capable current equipment to more expensive less capable new equipment.
      PM: "We need "
      Engineer: "Why?"
      PM: "Because, it does X, Y, and Z, and we need that!"
      E: "But already does X, Y, and Z, as well as G, E, and F. We wouldn't be operating without that."
      PM: "We need it anyway, do it."

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    6. Re:You need Cisco gear by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Damn my lack of previewing!!

      The missing information is, from top to bottom:
      "new expensive product A"
      and
      "older currently installed less expensive but more functional product B"

      Kudos if you find where the second goes, it might not be blatantly obvious at first. ;)

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  7. DNSMasq by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Informative

    DNSMasq. Nuff said.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  8. Nice answer Slashdotters. by bluephone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To everyone who tagged this "domyjobforme", I hope every single one of you gets the same response the next time you ask for help doing you job. At least this guy had the sense to say, "Hey, there's a community of people that contains a multitude of experts in many fields, I bet someone might have some good suggestions." And guess what else? Maybe some readers will find the suggestions helpful too. Ask Slashdot is for questions that the general community might find interesting and helpful, not just one guy. It's not just about the submitter, and it's certainly not about your need to be snide to those who recognize their shortcomings and try to expand their base of knowledge.

    --
    jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    1. Re:Nice answer Slashdotters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You sound like the idiot, for not realizing that people get stuck with jobs all the time for which they have not been fully trained. For myself, I'm an engineer who was asked to 'setup your own lab'. I'm not an IT type, I'm an electrical engineer specializing in circuit design. Yet, I've been handed the job of configuring 40 linux servers, DNS, DHCP, Cisco switches, multiple VLANs, and so forth simply because 'there's no one else to do it and no one is hiring anyone'. Sure, my company might be cheap for not providing IT services for my lab, but they're on a budget and extra employees are expensive. Only when the expense of having me configure my own DHCP services exceeds the expense of hiring someone to do it for me will they consider hiring someone external. And only then if they know the new hire will be used elsewhere.

      So guess what? This guy's question is exactly the kind of information I can use to help me overcome my own problems. Ask Slashdot seems to be doing its job quite nicely in this respect.

    2. Re:Nice answer Slashdotters. by spiffydudex · · Score: 1

      Well said. The comments posted above are very helpful. I myself have been learning cisco equipment and find the replies very interesting. Remember everyone has to start at the bottom. Just because you know more don't be a pompus ass, help the guy learn.

    3. Re:Nice answer Slashdotters. by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      I've got no problem with the guy trying to get up to speed. I have respect for someone who admits a shortcoming and works at fixing it. Slashdot is hardly a great place to do it though. He should go to his boss and admit that he's in over his head and needs to either get some training/credentials or get a decent consult with an expert. The money or resources spent on the education or quality advice wil pay off down the road when they avoid a major security incident.

    4. Re:Nice answer Slashdotters. by ET+Admin · · Score: 1

      We do have a paid consultant working with me on this. He is doing his job, of teaching me, very well. When I asked him this question, his response was, "personal preference". And so it is that preference that I am searching for.

    5. Re:Nice answer Slashdotters. by pfleming · · Score: 1

      Wow. If you don't really have time to answer the question (even if you have the expertise) why the hell are you spending time on /. posting about how you have no time?

  9. I'll echo everybody else.... by sysgeek01 · · Score: 1

    Don't use your cisco gear to manage dhcp. It's better utilized doing it's primary function of routing and switching. Set up a Linux box to do dhcp. Setup multiple subnets and use the "ip helper-address" command on the interfaces of your Cisco router's to forward the dhcp requests to your Linux dhcp server. It's simple to do. Once upon a time I setup a 5000k node network doing that very same thing.

  10. Re:VMs on win2k3 machines by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey, wait, VMware server's still an option for production servers. Several years ago, it was a commercial product called VMware GSX server.

    "Small wireless ISP" doesn't exactly strike me as the type of user, who would be deploying an Oracle RAC cluster with a load of 10k transactions per second, and an Exchange 2007 server with 5000 mailboxes, processing 10 messages per second.

    GSX was the version for production servers in a small environment. ESX was the high-end uber-expensive version for running massive numbers of servers on a dedicated host in a large environment.

    Server hardware in common use has gotten a lot better, much more powerful, since then. And VMware Server is no worse than GSX.

    If your workload is suitable for that type of virtualization, GSX should be okay.

    Yeah, ESX is a lot better, can handle many more VMs, and can virtualize many high-end workloads effectively that weren't even VM-suitable under GSX/VMware server.

    ESXi is less mature, and probably not as suitable as ESX.

  11. Some VLAN's globally??? by cdogg4ya · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't know enough about your environment but hopefully you know that that isn't a possibility across Layer 3 devices (and when I say VLAN's, I assume that you are talking about an IP segment and not just a VLAN number). That said the "ip dhcp helper" or DHCP relay I think is what you are looking for. This way you can have 1 DHCP server serving numerous VLAN's or L3 IP segments. If you have more specific questions feel free to reach out to me.

    Carl Fugate
    carl@iprouteradmin.com
    BLOG: www.iprouteradmin.com
    Router Lab: www.onlinerouterlab.com

    1. Re:Some VLAN's globally??? by ET+Admin · · Score: 1

      Our 3550s are conf'd to "ip route" and most of our nat'ed, private ip, customers will be on these layer 3 Vlans which are seperated by location (per tower). But we offer a public IP for customers, who can be anywhere on our network, and their traffic will be on a separate layer 2 Vlan that is configured globally through our network. The key to this, is that we are injecting the 802.11q tag at each customers wireless subscriber module, and that tag defines which vlan they are on.

    2. Re:Some VLAN's globally??? by donkeyoverlord · · Score: 1

      A VLAN is a layer 2 technology and can span across multiple switches. In Cisco IOS you can create a layer 3 interface to a VLAN.

    3. Re:Some VLAN's globally??? by fluffy99 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I get the strong impression you might be in way over your head with less than 3 years experience. You're asking about implement technologies which you don't fully understand yet. The risk here is that you might get a solution that works, but it will be horribly insecure.

      VLANS are layer 2. Subnetting is at the layer three level and normally coincidence with the layer 2 vlans you create (but not always). While you can have vlans spread across large regions, you defeat most of the benefits of using a vlan such as limiting broadcast domains and introduce some latency and timing issues. Cisco will tell you to keep the number of hops as small as possible. Adding 250 ms rtt between peers is an issue. Cisco has also had issues where vlans were not hard boundaries and you could get traffic to jump vlan boundaries by faking the 802.11q tags.

      I think I understand what your trying to accomplish - a public IP that can move around a larger region and between wireless towers at will. I think a far better solution is along the lines of a secure VPN. That avoids a whole slew of security and performance issues associated with vlans and wireless. What's stopping a malicious person from coming up with a wireless subscriber module (what exactly is that, btw?) that adds whatever vlan tag they want and getting access to any subnet at will?

      I also recommend using dhcp-helper and a handful of linux dhcp servers. That puts all the configuration in a central linux box and you don't have to muck with all the switches and routers for every little change.

    4. Re:Some VLAN's globally??? by ET+Admin · · Score: 1

      We have a paid consultant guiding me through this (20 yrs exp). Just on this point his response was "personal preference". He is running similar set ups in much larger environments such as our local hospital where he has hundreds of vlans setup.

  12. Just use your existing gear by acoustix · · Score: 1

    Using one or two of your Win2003 boxes, create multiple DHCP scopes for your multiple networks/subnets. Then just use the "ip helper-address" on your cisco gear to allow the DHCP requests to make it to your servers. Done. I do this at my company with 50+ VLANs.

    Cost = $0.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  13. CNR by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    Cisco make (or at least did make some time ago) a DHCP server (Cisco Network Registrar) based on Windows that does handle option 82. So you do not have to run DHCP on IOS, you can relay back to a central server. I have even been able to "script" CNR by sending command line commands to administer scopes (yes, thank god it has a command line). But in all honesty, it's far easier to automate the configuration of a standard linux or *BSD dhcpd.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  14. Re:why against running it on the cisco gear? by Foxxxy · · Score: 1

    for 100-500 leases, i would set it up on the cisco boxes.... also ensures the zero cost approach which always makes management happy.

  15. Support? by gslavik · · Score: 1

    I have to ask, who will be monitoring and supporting this architecture?

    1. Re:Support? by ET+Admin · · Score: 1

      Me! I have only been in this line of work for three years, and I have been sitting at the helm of someone else's network design for that period. Hence my thirst for knowledge.

    2. Re:Support? by gslavik · · Score: 1

      I meant 24/7 type monitoring ... ie: some system bites the dust, etc.

    3. Re:Support? by ET+Admin · · Score: 1

      We have spare pieces in house. I have all configs backed up. I can paste a config and plug it in easily. Our servers also offer some redundancy. We have 2-2003 server boxes running the VMs. The 2003 boxes are (going to be) fully isolated with only the VMs exposed, and providing the network services. We monitor everything with Cacti (SNMP) and a local college student is developing some nice plugins to map all of our hosts by gps coords (look at the Cacti forums if this interests you).

  16. Re:VMs on win2k3 machines by Techman83 · · Score: 1

    ESXi might be less mature, but it's free! Works pretty flawlessly and it's so damn similar to ESX it's not funny. Major differences are you can't tie a VM to a serial port and no real *nix console (there is a console, but it's f'ing limited) all CLI stuff is replaced with the Remote CLI, which I hear is pretty powerful, but I've not had the need to use it yet.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
    Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  17. Carnegie Mellon's NetReg by vitroth · · Score: 3, Informative

    Carnegie Mellon's NetReg is an open source system that provides a pretty complete IP Address Management toolset, including management of DNS & DHCP configurations for ISC bind/dhcpd. It can manage ISC dhcpd's failover configuration, and multiple server groups, etc.

    Rather then just repeating what I've said before when the subject of IP Address Management came up on slashdot, I'll just link to it.

    Note: While the project has been pretty quiet for quite some time now, thats mostly because its the system is very stable and there hasn't been a lot of major new development in the last couple of years. I used to be one of the core developers of the system before I moved on to another job, but its still in active use by many sites.

  18. Re:why against running it on the cisco gear? by vitroth · · Score: 1
    Issues I can think of offhand:
    • Lack of redundancy. With two redundant routers you can't trivially share the same DHCP range across both without problems. ISC dhcpd has a failover protocol where two redundant servers communicate with each other when they assign a lease.
    • Too simplistic. You don't get as much control over the options and setting you can assign via DHCP with the Cisco router dhcp implementation. For example I don't know of a way to do vendor space DHCP options. If you're dealing with a trivial config thats no big deal.
    • Logging, control, state. You can't get much information out of the router easily in terms of what requests its seeing and responding too. And to make things worse all the DHCP client state is stored entirely in memory, if the router reboots it will forget all the leases it already assigned, and may try to re-assign those same addresses to new clients.

    There are more, depending on the exact setup you're deploying and the level of complexity. (DHCP Option 82 for example)

  19. Weird-Solutions. by Chrisje · · Score: 1

    I would have a look at http://www.weird-solutions.com/

    They produce some cutting edge DHCP and provisioning software for amongst others the ISP market. Furthermore their staff are incredibly knowledgeable.

  20. Re:why against running it on the cisco gear? by ET+Admin · · Score: 1

    Logging is the main reason I like our current dhcpd setup. I tried the dhcp debugs on the cisco gear and didnt get much.

  21. Use the Unix/Linux boxes Luke.... by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Fixed your title for you.

  22. Re:VMs on win2k3 machines by mysidia · · Score: 1

    My opinion of ESXi is it's great, but you really need VMotion with it, because (among other things) ESXi seems more prone to instability of the management interface, mainly because it has fewer allocated resources.

    Well, i've seen the ESXi "thin management interface" running out of memory, such that the VI client could barely connect, and such, it's not fun, and requires a reboot of the machine, since there's no proper console to SSH in on. I've had unique instability issues with ESXi. And also been hit by PSOD (Pink Screens of Death) in ESXi, but not when testing ESX.

    ESXi doesn't provide a support remote management solution other than the graphical VI client. I realize there's a hack that lets you get access to a busybox shell, but VMware may close this at any time, in a later critical fix, i.e. it's not something to rely upon.

    You can't really buy support from VMware and use it, they'll blame your problems on you using an unsupported hack.

    The remote management API and the Remote CLI's access is restricted to read-only operations, unless you buy at least a Foundation level license.

    i.e. It's free to use the remote CLI in read-only mode, but as soon as you want to do something like clone a VMDK file, or power on a VM, the free version doesn't allow it.

    The secret is VMware accidentally "enabled full write access" in ESXi 3.5 Update 3. (But they realized their mistake and made it read-only again, re-imposed the restrictions in the next version)

    There are some other bugs in update 3, mainly security bugs, and issues that effect iSCSI and SAN users.

    But if you utilize direct attached storage, and only run trusted code in your VMs, installing the old version of ESXi and using 3.5 may be an option, for having at least some minimal amount of proper remote management and scriptability.

  23. Re:VMs on win2k3 machines by Techman83 · · Score: 1

    Thanks, I hadn't run into a lot of those. Good to know! Great for a home dev environment though. Before I moved house, my box had been running Nearly a year straight. Uptime not so great at the moment, long power failure and I've done a few upgrades!

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
    Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  24. OpenNetAdmin by hornet136 · · Score: 1

    I'll throw out my solution.

    As many people here have suggested, ISC DHCP server has no trouble with this and can handle many subnets and pool combinations from one or more servers. Then with the combination of ip helper-address on Cisco platforms you can control which server(s) handle the network. Throw DHCP-Failover into the mix and make it redundant.

    To manage all this I'd suggest OpenNetAdmin. It is geared to manage as any IPAM would, your address space. It can also be instructed to manage multiple DHCP servers in whatever combination you need. Then those servers simply extract their specific configuration from the database. It should have no issue scaling to several hundred distributed DHCP servers if needed. It will all however be managed easily via the centralized WEB/CLI interface. Opennetadmin will also keep track of your vlan information as well.

    I would personally avoid running DHCP on the cisco devices, but thats just me. :)

    Hope that helps. Again, head to http://opennetadmin.com/ and see if that works for you!

    Thanks