independent servers on same subnet

[Simon Hobson]

Carl Karsten wrote:

>Those were the 2 thing I thought would work, but I just heard a 
>third, and dare I say it seems like a reasonable config:
>
>>  You are forgetting about redundancy. Many sites will
>>  replicate reservations across DHCP servers.  You have to do it manually,
>>  but there are tricks.
>>  I run two DHCP servers without reservations, I just use two scopes that
>>  don't overlap.
>
>It cuts the usable size of your pool in half, cuz if one server is 
>always faster (like when the other goes down) it's pool is the pool.
>
>That is the only down side I can think of.  am I missing anything?

Yes, that will work IFF you don't care which client uses which 
server. But in the case originally mentioned, that wasn't the case.

There is yet another way, but it rather defeats the point of DHCP - 
you can run any number of servers configured with the same static 
host configs (ie no dynamic ranges).