dhcp vs static

hey all..

as a part of our final yr proj,v r proposin a revamped design of our coll LAN(700 odd PCs and 7 departments)..currently all da IPs are manually assigned...jus wanted to hw significant a differnece wuld implemnting DHCP mk(since v r propsoin a VLAN design)...does it cause additonal overload or is easier to manage..? also if u guys culd suggest sum gud links for dhco wuld b of gr8 help!!

My first suggestion would be to brush up up on your professional writing skills. Secondly, I would shoot myself if I was the admin of a network that had 700 hosts all of which are using a static addressing scheme. As far as implementing a DHCP server, Windows Server will do just fine, or you could use DHCP on your router, (depending on model)

smitherton,

Is there an advantage to having a dedicated Windows Server 2003 running as a DHCP server V.S. having a router to provide the DHCP service?

Thanks,
K

I do not consider myself to be a professor in windows 2003, but I could see advantages in using Windows 2003 for DHCP for several reasons:

1)Delegate control through active directory
2)Good integration with Windows DNS. When DHCP updates an address it updates records in the DNS database.
3)A nice GUI with good reporting and stats
4)Detects unauthorized DHCP servers in network.

I am not saying that windows is the only software that will do these things, but they do make it pretty easy.

4)Detects unauthorized DHCP servers in network.

Isn't that providing its a Windows DHCP services that is on the network ?

I am not sure, I know that a DHCP server will send a DHCPINFORM via multicast is it then possible to restrict what hosts are in the multicast group?