With DHCP, does size really matter?

OK, I burned a bunch of time on this, let's see if it's a feature, or a bug.

I set up a new ASG120 using a heavily VLAN'd setup. 10 VLANs, attached to a Link Aggravation ////// sorry, Aggregation interface. Core switch and edge switches all set up and running great. Some minor traffic in and out showing up on the VLAN interfaces of the dashboard screen. Traffic will move through the box if I use static IP addresses.

However, no DHCP IP addresses showing up on the clients.

Checked out everything 3 times, all looks good.

Then I shart playing with DHCP setup.

Looking at the DHCP live log, nothing was showing up in the log.

I built the VLAN interfaces with a /16 mask to make sure they'd have plenty of room to grow. Initially, when I built the DHCP entries, I clicked on the interface, and used the defaults do their thing. That turned out to be the problem.

When I went back to basics with the DHCP, I changed the scope

From:
x.x.0.1 - x.x.255.254

To:
x.x.0.1 - x.x.0.250

on all 10 DHCP entries.

Viola, all of the DHCP servers started handing out IP addresses to everyone connected. This VLAN thing is the way to go!

Some day I'll put them back to 'large size' and see where the system breaks down, but since this is now working just fine, tomorrow morning I need to get this group live...

So, is it a bug that a scope that large won't work???

Is it a bug that a scope that big shouldn't be allowed by the GUI???

What is the max scope for a DHCP server??? multiple servers???

Is it a problem that it was a Link Aggregated interface???

Was it a problem that multiple servers of that size aggregated to create the problem???

Any thoughts?