Moving computers to a new subnet & DNS

Microsoft windows Server 2003 standard e...
July 28, 2010 at 00:05:28
Specs: Windows Server 2003
Hi everyone,

This is my first post, so please bear with me if I've fogotten any details needed to help troubleshoot my question.

I have six (6) new WinXP SP3 machines which I've configured locally on our network. These computers have registered with DNS and now have a local IP address (ie- 192.1.1.200.) The trouble is that these workstations are destined for one of our satellite offices across the U.S., which operates on a separate subnet (ie- 192.1.2.200.) We are using an MPLS to connect our offices and the sole DNS for our company is located at my location. I'm worried that there may be some sort of conflict with DNS when our employees there connect them to the network, since they have already associated with my local subnet here.

Should I remove these computers from the DNS when I ship them out, so that the DNS will treat these as new, unassigned machines once they arrive at their destination or does it make any difference at all? I'm not perfectly clear on how DNS treats this issue and am hoping someone can clear this up for me.

Looking forward to your reply!
Thanks,
Jason


See More: Moving computers to a new subnet & DNS

Report •

#1
July 28, 2010 at 09:45:21
You should statically assign the ips to these units as they would exist at the remote site.
Remove the existing dns server entrys and manually create the new ones.
In AD Sites and Services you should have this remote site listed as a ip subnet.


Report •

#2
July 29, 2010 at 20:57:57
Thank you very much, wanderer.

I've done just that - assigned static IPs to each machine (by editing the IP address field for the records in DNS and clicking OK.) Also, the computers are on their way as of today. They will take approximately 5 days to get to their destination, so the proof will be "in the pudding" then, I suppose.

I'll respond again with the results when they are brought up online from afar.


Report •

#3
July 30, 2010 at 08:43:38
"assigned static IPs to each machine (by editing the IP address field for the records in DNS and clicking OK.)"

This does not assign static ips to the workstations.

I am sensing some confusion between dns server and dhcp server procedures.


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
August 4, 2010 at 23:54:02
Sorry for the delay, wanderer.
Maybe I am a little confused. We do use DHCP, but these addresses are visible in the DNS.
Is manual entry the only way to statically assign an IP address to a workstation (done at the physical machine?)
This cannot be done by modifying the DNS record?

Report •

#5
August 5, 2010 at 13:31:15
DHCP gives out ips.
DNS resolves those ips to machine name and back again.

The only connection between DHCP and DNS is if you configure dhcp to dynamically update DNS. This only works if you are solely using MS DHCP.

Since you are doing static ips on the workstation you must manually match those ips/host and ptr entries in DNS.

Make sense?


Report •

#6
August 5, 2010 at 21:54:26
I think I've got it now.
A - Manually assign the IPs on the workstations.
B - Assign the PTR entries with the matching IPs from above.
Is this correct?

Report •

#7
August 6, 2010 at 09:59:41
Yes
and
yes but host AND ptr entries

Report •

#8
August 12, 2010 at 23:37:44
Okay, our satellite office has received the new computers (that were configured on my subnet.)

Because I wasn't able to assign the static IP addresses on the workstations themselves before they left (I learned this was needed after they had shipped,) I made a cheat sheet and walked one of our tech savvy employees through how to assign the IP addresses statically. These IPs matched the PTR records I had populated here. As soon as this task was completed on the workstation... Lo and behold the computers came right up into the network and they were connected!

Thank you very much for all your help, wanderer. You've prevented an unneeded headache and have helped enable our users to use their new equipment.

Thanks!


Report •

#9
August 13, 2010 at 10:59:38
Good news. Thanks for the update.

Report •

Ask Question