Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theoak View Post
    ...
    Make sure your static addresses are not in the DHCP assignment pool.
    Quote Originally Posted by sky-knight View Post
    There is no reason to have static assignments outside of the lease pool. They are reserved for the device, now there can be some frustration when you reserve an IP that's already assigned to another device.
    ...
    That's why I do that ... keeps it easier for me.
    Untangle 14.1.0 (Build: 14.1.0.20181130) (Kernel: 4.9.0-7-untangle-amd64)
    QOTOM-Q355G4
    1.6-2.7 GHz Intel I5 5250U, 128GB SSD mSATA, 8GB RAM DDR3L, 4xRJ-45 Intel I211AT 10/100/1000 Controller

  2. #12
    Untangler jcoffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    7,435

    Default

    Static addresses should be in your DHCP range. The static entries will remove the IP addresses from the dynamic assignment pool and only assign them to specific MAC address.
    Attention: Support and help on the Untangle Forums is provided by
    volunteers and community members like yourself.
    If you need Untangle support please call or email support@untangle.com

  3. #13
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theoak View Post
    keeps it easier for me.
    I don't do it for exactly the same reason (for me it's really an old habit formed ages ago when using Linksys consumer routers as DHCP servers and having to set static IPs on the devices themselves), but me too on the easier part.

    Make a big pool and then immediately take addresses out of the pool. Make a small pool and leave it alone.

    I dunno...
    theoak likes this.

  4. #14
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    77

    Default

    I have several reasons for having static assignments outside the lease pool.

    I've powered all devices, including the UT machine, on and off so much in the last 24 hours, I've lost count.

    Issue has not resolved.

  5. #15
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    650

    Default

    As a long time *OS user and as a fairly long time Untangle user (multiple versions) in different environments I've been following this with interest. I have to say that I've never encountered this behavior before but would love to figure it out. Assigned IPs stay assigned. The current leases match the assigned IPs (I just double-checked at home here, just in case).

    So there has to be an identifiable problem. If there is only one DHCP server, then I suspect Untangle's configuration rather than an iOS configuration or feature as a starting point. But where to look, I'm still thinking about that.

    EDIT: If you've already talked about this and I've missed it, I apologize. So just to know, do you have any custom dnsmasq options set?
    Last edited by Sam Graf; 01-05-2019 at 07:56 AM.

  6. #16
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcoffin View Post
    Static addresses should be in your DHCP range. The static entries will remove the IP addresses from the dynamic assignment pool and only assign them to specific MAC address.


    OK. I only have one frame of reference here, and that is pfsense, because that's what I've just transitioned from. So I'm not pointing fingers or anything, I'm just trying to frame UT's behavior in a way that I can understand.

    I keep my network equipment and servers on the low end (192.168.0.1-15), each users' various devices in other ranges (.20-25, .30-35, .40-45, etc), IP cameras elsewhere (.200-210) etc. Perhaps I should be using vlans instead, but a simple flat network is very easy for me to keep up with, and this is how I've had things running for a decade or more, now.

    pfsense was configured so that all the aforementioned addresses were statically assigned to the appropriate MAC addresses. When folks come to the house and request wifi access, 192.168.0.150-160 (for example) gets handed out. This had always worked flawlessly, until now.

    Perhaps, and I suppose for sure, the way I have things set up is not best practice. But if I put all of my static entries in the dhcp range, then guest clients pick up addresses from within that range, I will have to pay extra attention when looking at devices in a live view, so as to not mix things up (ie, in a list of hosts, I know that 192.168.0.40 is one of my kid's laptops, .41 is her kindle, .42 is her phone, etc).

    If a guest pops in and is given .43, I will have to keep that in mind, I suppose.

  7. #17
    Untangle Junkie dmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    San Carlos, CA
    Posts
    17,648

    Default

    directly from the dnsmasq docs:

    Addresses allocated like this are not constrained to be in the range given by the --dhcp-range option, but they must be in the same subnet as some valid dhcp-range.
    http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq...smasq-man.html
    Attention: Support and help on the Untangle Forums is provided by volunteers and community members like yourself.
    If you need Untangle support please call or email support@untangle.com

  8. #18
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmorris View Post

    So I'm doing it right, or wrong?

  9. #19
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tucansam View Post
    So I'm doing it right, or wrong?
    What you’re doing (and others here are doing) is valid, according to the docs. Best practice is in debate but not relevant at the moment; the problem of non-sticky reserved IP addresses isn’t here.

  10. #20
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    686

    Default

    ??? That's not how I see it... That's not how DNSMasq is supposed to work, so I would say he's doing it wrong per how Untangle and DNSMasq work. I'm not arguing the philosophy or prudence of what he does either way.

    If we were going to talk 'best practices'... For guests, they really should be on a separate VLAN and SSID anyway, which obviously would make them very easy to track as they would then have their own DHCP range anyway.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2