Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Generally, DHCP servers do not track addresses leased by other DHCP servers, which I believe also applies to Cisco routers acting as a DHCP server. When they don't track each other, one solution is to give your DHCP servers part of the address pool being leased, i.e. non-overlapping.
One issue that can arise doing this, one DHCP server might provide its pool addresses faster and exhaust its pool. If that happens, the alternate DHCP server will lease its addresses but now your at risk if that server fails. Two possible solutions: if one DHCP generally always wins the lease, give it most of the pool. Or, have the total pool address space large enough one sever shouldn't run out of addresses.
