Everybody seems to work with the well known public ranges (10.x.x.x; 192.168.x.x; etc). Why not use the 169.x.x.x?
What is the downside of using a DHCP server which works with a pool of 169.x.x.x.
I ask this because a IT collaeqe tells me I can only use the VPN client at home when my laptop has an APIPA address. That is the way they setup the VPN gateway. I found this very strange, but if I want to work at home, my home network must be compliant.
Before I go that way, I want to know what the downsides are for my own LAN (1xw2k3 AD with DNS, 1xw2k3 with DHCP and Notes, 1xw2k3 file/print, 3x clients with w2k and 2x clients XP) if I change everything to the 169.x.x.x .
Is there another solution like giving my laptop a second static ip-addres in the 169 range and leave the primary IP given by my DHCP server within my present range (10.110.210.x).
In theory you can use any IP Address range you like as your DHCP scope, providing of course that your network is not directly connected to the Internet. As long as your internet access is via a router, gateway or NAT device then you can use whatever you like on the private side.
As for the VPN, it sounds like they chose the 169 range since that is the range in which your XP client will allocate itself an IP Address if it can't find a DHCP server. So when you take your laptop home, to where (in their eyes) you have no networking kit or other computers whatsoever, you'll have a 169 address so they set up the VPN to work with that. In short, I don't see a problem in you changing your DHCP scope to use the 169 range as both arrangements should then be able to co-exist