Whats the difference between using an exclusion range vs using a smaller address pool ?
Example: Scope = 192.168.0.50 - 192.168.0.254
In this instance, .0 through .49 are effectively excluded since they are not included in the pool.
Or, as Microsoft's best Practice states to do:
Scope: 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.254
Exclusion Range: 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.49
In this example, the range is explicitly excluded.
Functionally these appear to be the same, neither scope would assign an address between .1-.49. Both still allow for reservations to be created in the excluded range. Assuming no failover, spilt scopes or superscopes, Are there pros or cons of using either method ?
Example: Scope = 192.168.0.50 - 192.168.0.254
In this instance, .0 through .49 are effectively excluded since they are not included in the pool.
Or, as Microsoft's best Practice states to do:
Scope: 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.254
Exclusion Range: 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.49
In this example, the range is explicitly excluded.
Functionally these appear to be the same, neither scope would assign an address between .1-.49. Both still allow for reservations to be created in the excluded range. Assuming no failover, spilt scopes or superscopes, Are there pros or cons of using either method ?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram