Hot Standby rather than Load Balance for DHCP failover across geographically separated sites

I'm working on a Windows Server 2025 DHCP deployment in a workgroup environment (no Active Directory), with two DHCP servers located in different geographical sites.

The requirement is to have both DHCP servers actively serving the same scopes, ensuring high availability if one server or an entire site becomes unavailable.

Our intended configuration is:

• Site A: DHCP Server 1

Site B: DHCP Server 2

DHCP Failover Mode: Load Balance (50/50)

Environment: Workgroup (no Active Directory)

Scopes: Approximately 1,600 IPv4 scopes, shared between both servers

Network: DHCP relay agents (IP helpers) configured to reach both DHCP servers

I understand that Microsoft generally recommends Hot Standby rather than Load Balance for DHCP failover across geographically separated sites, mainly due to network latency and connectivity considerations.

However, our requirement is to have both servers actively providing DHCP services for the same scopes, even though they are located in different sites.

I'd appreciate some feedback from anyone who has implemented a similar setup:

Has anyone successfully deployed Windows DHCP Failover in Load Balance mode across two different sites?

Have you experienced any issues related to latency, synchronization, lease replication, or WAN interruptions?

Are there any specific limitations or risks when using DHCP Failover in a workgroup environment?

Would you recommend Load Balance in this scenario, or would Hot Standby still be the better option?

Are there any best practices or configuration recommendations for this architecture?

We've already tested DHCP Failover in Load Balance mode in a lab environment, and scope synchronization and lease consistency appear to be working correctly.

I'm particularly interested in real-world production experience and recommendations before moving forward with this architecture.

Thanks in advance for your help!I'm working on a Windows Server 2025 DHCP deployment in a workgroup environment (no Active Directory), with two DHCP servers located in different geographical sites.

The requirement is to have both DHCP servers actively serving the same scopes, ensuring high availability if one server or an entire site becomes unavailable.

Our intended configuration is:

Site A: DHCP Server 1

Site B: DHCP Server 2

DHCP Failover Mode: Load Balance (50/50)

Environment: Workgroup (no Active Directory)

• Scopes: Approximately 1,200 IPv4 scopes, shared between both servers

Network: DHCP relay agents (IP helpers) configured to reach both DHCP servers

I understand that Microsoft generally recommends Hot Standby rather than Load Balance for DHCP failover across geographically separated sites, mainly due to network latency and connectivity considerations.

However, our requirement is to have both servers actively providing DHCP services for the same scopes, even though they are located in different sites.

I'd appreciate some feedback from anyone who has implemented a similar setup:

Has anyone successfully deployed Windows DHCP Failover in Load Balance mode across two different sites?

Have you experienced any issues related to latency, synchronization, lease replication, or WAN interruptions?

Are there any specific limitations or risks when using DHCP Failover in a workgroup environment?

Would you recommend Load Balance in this scenario, or would Hot Standby still be the better option?

Are there any best practices or configuration recommendations for this architecture?

We've already tested DHCP Failover in Load Balance mode in a lab environment, and scope synchronization and lease consistency appear to be working correctly.

I'm particularly interested in real-world production experience and recommendations before moving forward with this architecture.

Thanks in advance for your help!