Running DHCP on a router a strange thing to do? I'm curious as to why you say this? I don't want to start an argument, but I'm interested in your point of view and why you feel this way. So please don't take this the wrong way as I'd prefer a debate over this instead of a flame ware.<br><br>I have DHCP running on two seperate routers and am in the process of setting it up on another. In my network it works great. To me, this elminates one more thing in the network that could go wrong. It makes perfect sense to me to run this on the router, as it helps reduce costs. You don't need to purchase a seperate server, actually two if you want redundancy. You don't need to purchase additional software, unless you are using Linux or FreeBSD (personal favorite) and have good reliable open-source DHCP server software. You also don't need to purchase some type of tape backup and tapes to backup those servers. Since I already back up my router configs - doesn't everyone? - I know I've always got a backup. Yes, what you say is correct, a router will work best if it does only one thing, but in todays IT world, that's kind of unrealistic. Otherwise, cisco's IOS would not be so feature packed. If you're router is doing a dozen other CPU intensive tasks, I would advise not to put DHCP on it, but otherwise, use it. If you're using IPSec or some other tasks that are eating your CPU's utilization, then DHCP on the router isn't the way to go. But if you're router is sitting at 5% utilization, do it. You paid a good deal of money for that cisco router, put it to work for you! So I don't feel it is a strange thing to do. If you're router is already working pretty hard and taking on a good size load, don't burden it down further with DHCP, but instead, use a server platform for DHCP. But, if your router isn't doing a whole lot and it's utilization is very low, put DHCP on it, it's easy to configure and maintain. All this though is dependent upon what model router you have and what other functions it is currently doing.