Static IP won't work

[patseguin]

I have a home network with a router address of 192.168.1.1 and want to set up a static IP for my htpc for using an iPhone app remote for xmbc. I am putting in 192.168.1.15 as the address, 255.255.255.0 as the subnet and the router's address of 192.168.1.1 as the default gateway. I then set Google's DNS servers. I OK out of it and can't access the internet. I redo it and validate settings and what it does is just make it dynamic again, What am I doing wrong?

[riahc3]

Hello,

I wonder if it was something stupid like a device on my network already had a dynamic address with 15. I'll bet that's it.

Very very likely. Did you test a address with 14 and 16? Did it work?

BTW, please mark as Best Answer whoever gave you a answer that was most detailed and explained everything.

[xendrome]

Try setting the static IP to 192.168.1.200

 

Perhaps there is some type of router setting filtering the use of numbers below 100 or 200

[patseguin]

Hmm never thought of that. I'll try that.

[LambdaLambdaLambdaFn]

Check your DHCP range on the router and make sure the IP you're using doesn't fall in that range.

 

My Linksys router shows...  I suspect I couldn't assign anything in that range for static.

 

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr)]

Just set the router's DHCP server to always reserve a particular leased IP for your htpc MAC address instead of doing manual static configuration on the PC side. I always do that instead.

[patseguin]

That did it. My router must have had a filter like you said. Thanks!

[riahc3]

Hello,

That did it. My router must have had a filter like you said. Thanks!

This is a better answer:

Just set the router's DHCP server to always reserve a particular leased IP for your htpc MAC address instead of doing manual static configuration on the PC side. I always do that instead.

 

[+BudMan]

"Perhaps there is some type of router setting filtering the use of numbers below 100 or 200"

What?? No, and No.

Lets say the router had some firewall rule it that said hey if your IP is not between .100 and .200 you can not use the internet.. Sure lets say He created such a rule without knowing it.

The problem is this statement

" I redo it and validate settings and what it does is just make it dynamic again, What am I doing wrong? "

Sorry, but the system does not auto change back to dhcp - it just not, not matter what settings you might put on a firewall/router its connected to.. It just not possible - no way no how. You could even put in a duplicate IP of even say your routers IP in as static.. Its not going to change it back to dynamic

Look here

Set my IP to same as my gateway.. Still took it, now it warns me when it detects dupe -- but it never changes it to dhcp again. Now what it does is say hey that address is duplicated, lets try a APIPA address, ie random 168.254.. So when you click ok on the error it changes it to that.

But look here - my settings are still there as static.

What is more likely is the OP was doing something wrong, maybe not elevated to admin and tried to change the IP? And then he did elevate up when setting it to .200

Not sure what the user was doing wrong -- but I would bet my left nut it has nothing to do with any router filtering anything ;)

[patseguin]

What I was doing wrong was obviously using a network address too low..15 didn't work and .100 does work so it must be a router configuration.

[+BudMan]

NO!! Sorry every single soho router I have ever seen uses a /24.. Most wont even let you change them to anything else. And if your router is 192.168.1.1 -- If your network is 192.168.1.0/24 then 192.168.1.15 is valid, unless you already have a .15 on the network.

Tell you what -- let me teamviewer in take a look, because what your saying is just nonsense plain and simple.

/24 or 255.255.255.0 gives you the last octet as your hosts, and the first 3 as your network. So

192.168.1.0/24 gives you

192.168.1.1 to 192.168.1.254 as viable host addresses with .0 being the wire or network and .255 the broadcast address

Does not matter what your dhcp server might be set to for scope .2 to .254 or .100 to .150, etc. .10 to .15 this is just what it hands out.. All the addresses are still valid. The only reason they would not be valid is if something else is already using it!!

[xendrome]

What I was doing wrong was obviously using a network address too low..15 didn't work and .100 does work so it must be a router configuration.

 

I've seen some routers not route traffic using a static IP of an IP that was within it's DHCP range, unless it was specifically given out by DHCP and is in the DHCP table.

 

Budman, seriously, don't get so worked up over it, technically speaking you are right, but sometimes there are weird things like this in some specific routers.

 

patseguin, what router make/model is it that you have?

[+BudMan]

Sorry but no. There is nothing I hate more than FUD!!! There is one thing to say that the router will not route traffic unless its inside its dhcp scope and given by dhcp. Or statically outside - Its another to say his desktop switched back to dhcp..

And what routers have you seen where the dhcp scope starts low where 15 would be in the scope.. They all seem to start with 100.. So how would 15 be inside his dhcp scope?

I have seen a **** load of soho routers and have never come across not routing traffic that has anything to do with the dhcp server.. What if I turn that off - so not what nothing works through the router? That makes NO sense from any sort of level.

What there is in this thread is misinformation, and I had HATE misinformation..

Which is why I would love to TV in and get to the bottom of this nonsense. What is most likely is he was doing something wrong when trying to set it to .15 -- and did it right when set to .200.. Or maybe he has something already on .15?

[riahc3]

Hello,

Budman, seriously, don't get so worked up over it, technically speaking you are right, but sometimes there are weird things like this in some specific routers.

If he is "technically right", then there is no "weird things" about it.

Personally, I dont quite understand why he is setting a static IP thru a client network device. The only reason I can think of that it doesnt have a option to set static IP to mac address....

What is the model of your router (which I assume is your DHCP server)?

I think the best answer (in most cases) is not putting a bandaid over a broken leg (xendrome), its analizing exactly where that leg is broken and what is going to take to fix it in a resonable timeframe (BudMan).

[+BudMan]

There plenty of reasons why you might set a static on the client vs setting a dhcp reservation riahc3

Off the top, maybe you want to use different setting then what is handed out in the scope, say different dns, wins, ntp - there are ###### loads of dhcp options that might be set. Maybe you don't want to use those? Now your ###### soho router dhcp server might not let you set many of these.. But real dhcp servers do. If you don't want a client to use any of these then you need to set it static on the client.

Maybe you want this client to function be your dhcp server down or up, etc. Yes you can always get the same IP via reservation on your mac.. But if that dhcp server is down your going to get nothing ;)

I normally set my workstation static on the box, now for example my phone and ipads are set with reservations so I know what IPs they are going to be.. But they are mobile so they really need for wireless interface to be dhcp.

Agree though quite often just setting up a dhcp reservation so your machine is always .X more often then not will be fine - example you want to port forward to that machine. So you set a reservation to .X so you know its always that IP, etc.

From what I can tell from what the user wants to do, a reservation would solve his issue of a port forward so he can use xmbc remotely. But he should also be able to set it on the client as well if he wants.

[xendrome]

I'm telling you guys, I've had a couple of routers not route traffic from a static IP set device that had an address set which fell within the DHCP pool but the router did not see it's lease in the DHCP pool.

 

I'm not spreading FUD, so perhaps stop being jerks about it.. and yes technically speaking Budman is correct on the way it should operate in NORMAL circumstances with 99% of all routers... and yes it is a "weird thing" when a router does something that traditionally 99% of all routers do not do.

 

So stop being complete jerks about it and maybe consider the fact that sometimes things don't work exactly as you are used to them working....

 

Budman you need to adjust your attitude towards people on these forums and stop being a smug know it all. That's a fact, you can report it if you want, but there's a huge difference between name calling and speaking the truth. Not everyone is as talented as you are and there is not reason to go around treating others as if they are less then you, People are sick of it and even though your technically skills are top notch, your people skills are non-existent.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr)]

I'm telling you guys, I've had a couple of routers not route traffic from a static IP set device that had an address set which fell within the DHCP pool but the router did not see it's lease in the DHCP pool.

 

I do believe I've seen a few routers in my time with that issue and I think I've seen some that have dhcp ranges that differ between the wireless and wired connections also and if you tried to statically allocate wireless in the wired range, it wouldn't work out.

 

Every router is different, so there isn't really a feasible reason why couldn't come across weird gotchas like that.

[Top Qat]

This:

 

 

Just set the router's DHCP server to always reserve a particular leased IP for your htpc MAC address instead of doing manual static configuration on the PC side. I always do that instead.

 

This is my setup:

 

 

[riahc3]

Hello,

There plenty of reasons why you might set a static on the client vs setting a dhcp reservation riahc3

Off the top, maybe you want to use different setting then what is handed out in the scope, say different dns, wins, ntp - there are **** loads of dhcp options that might be set. Maybe you don't want to use those? Now your ****ty soho router dhcp server might not let you set many of these.. But real dhcp servers do. If you don't want a client to use any of these then you need to set it static on the client.

But in a SOHO? I ment in that sort of environment, I don't think DHCP settings should be set client side. There really is no reason in a 3 client with one router (typical home) for someone there to use a different NTP server or DNS servers....

 

I'm telling you guys, I've had a couple of routers not route traffic from a static IP set device that had an address set which fell within the DHCP pool but the router did not see it's lease in the DHCP pool.

Out of curiosity, make/model of those routers?

 

I'm not spreading FUD, so perhaps stop being jerks about it.. and yes technically speaking Budman is correct on the way it should operate in NORMAL circumstances with 99% of all routers... and yes it is a "weird thing" when a router does something that traditionally 99% of all routers do not do.

 

So stop being complete jerks about it and maybe consider the fact that sometimes things don't work exactly as you are used to them working....

 

Budman you need to adjust your attitude towards people on these forums and stop being a smug know it all. That's a fact, you can report it if you want, but there's a huge difference between name calling and speaking the truth. Not everyone is as talented as you are and there is not reason to go around treating others as if they are less then you, People are sick of it and even though your technically skills are top notch, your people skills are non-existent.

Budman in this thread has not "name called" ANYONE. The only one that was named calling in a global moderator which is yourself (bolded it for you)

Budman has been like this since 2003 (when I joined). He isn't going to change for me, for you or for others. That's the way he is. You either accept it or ignore his advice. I don't always see eye to eye with him on things he says or how he says it but you have to respect a man that is almost on here everyday helping people out with (overall network) problems. There is a reason this guy has been credited with 42 solved threads.

Budman's issue is when he reads something, goes crosseyed and says "WTF? How can you say that?" then goes on to explain to you with details, screenshots (these screenshots he has to go, turn on his virtual machine, emulate the scenario, take those shots and upload them. Do you know how much work he has put into some posts???)

xendrome, if you don't like how Budman writes, my suggestion is to stay out of any thread he writes. His writing style doesn't break the rules or anything. Its just the way he writes.

Members like you are going to sadly one day draw him away from Neowin when he is one of the founding members on here that always helps out.

After this rant, "weird things" in networking are not something that exists in hardware; it is usually a software and/or configuration issue. Imagine (Im exaggerating) instead of a router supporting both UDP and TCP, it only did UDP. Yeah 99% of traditional routers do both but hey its a "weird thing" that that router doesnt....no, it just doesn't work like that.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr)]

After this rant, "weird things" in networking are not something that exists in hardware; it is usually a software and/or configuration issue. Imagine (Im exaggerating) instead of a router supporting both UDP and TCP, it only did UDP. Yeah 99% of traditional routers do both but hey its a "weird thing" that that router doesnt....no, it just doesn't work like that.

 

It all depends on the DHCP implementation. To be perfectly honest, you aren't really even suppose to set static IPs within a DHCP range. It is just that typical DHCP servers will check to see if the address is already taken via an ICMP broadcast before assigning any IP even if they haven't handed it out. Unfortunately, this can cause issues if the server hands out the address and then later a statically set computer comes online. If you have a poor DHCP server implementation, it may not even go that far, it might just outright fail if you try setting a static route within the dhcp specified range (and that's where weird gotchas come into play). I actually know of a few BSD based firewall/router solutions that specifically warn you to not set static IPs within the range because of unexpected behavior if you do (one of which I use to use back in 2007-8 in place of a consumer router).

[+BudMan]

Sorry but this is FUD.. Because the supposed solution doesn't actually address the issue.

He is setting static on client, and stated this

"I redo it and validate settings and what it does is just make it dynamic again,"

This in by its self is not - sure, their could besomething odd with the router that was setup.

Try setting the static IP to 192.168.1.200

Perhaps there is some type of router setting filtering the use of numbers below 100 or 200

My point about FUD, that maybe I was not quiet clear about was that some possible filtering on the router would/could not cause the CLIENT to change its interfaces settings from static to dhcp.. That would be NONE.. I don't care if you thinking I am being smug when I say that or not. Sorry I don't care what router you have - its NOT possible for the router filtering/policies/anything to change the settings on the client interface from static to dhcp again.

So clearly the user is doing something he is not saying. And the fact that .200 worked seems more like random chance than any solution. Maybe .16 would of worked as well because something else is going on besides a filtering/issues with the router.

But it spreads as FUD, because what the user took out of it was this

"What I was doing wrong was obviously using a network address too low..15 "

So now his buddy will ask him some sort of question about setting a static IP, and he will make sure I quite certain that -- "Make sure you use a number above .200" in case your router has a filter like mine ;)

[xendrome]

Budman has been like this since 2003 (when I joined). He isn't going to change for me, for you or for others. That's the way he is. You either accept it or ignore his advice. I don't always see eye to eye with him on things he says or how he says it but you have to respect a man that is almost on here everyday helping people out with (overall network) problems. There is a reason this guy has been credited with 42 solved threads.

Budman's issue is when he reads something, goes crosseyed and says "WTF? How can you say that?" then goes on to explain to you with details, screenshots (these screenshots he has to go, turn on his virtual machine, emulate the scenario, take those shots and upload them. Do you know how much work he has put into some posts???)

xendrome, if you don't like how Budman writes, my suggestion is to stay out of any thread he writes. His writing style doesn't break the rules or anything. Its just the way he writes.

Members like you are going to sadly one day draw him away from Neowin when he is one of the founding members on here that always helps out.

 

Just because someone has been here awhile (myself included, 2001) doesn't mean we can treat others as though their opinions don't count or they are spreading FUD simply because it didn't happen to us. I'm sorry if I can't give you an exact example of the routers that I've seen it with in the past, I remember it being a Sprint DSL router for sure, 645 series I think. Where the interface was all telnet and no GUI.

 

I apologize if I came across as personally attacking you Budman, I understand what your intentions are and I know you are trying to be as detailed as possible and get to the point to help someone, I'm just asking that you try to be less I don't know what the word is, aggressive or direct towards other members if you feel they are wrong/misleading someone.

[+BudMan]

Maybe it was unclear what point I was trying to say was FUD.. Maybe my last post clears it up some.. I am not saying what you stated specifically is fud.. The user clearly stated his interface setting went back to dchp from static - maybe he mispoke, maybe he just doesn't understand difference between apipa and dhcp? And he stepped on something already having .15 and got something like my example?

I have no idea to be honest - but your statement is not the specific reason for the fud. The fud is that now the user thinks reason he just used a too low IP?? Which I find very very unlikely.. How is his router on .1, and .15 not a viable IP to use on a what has to be /24 for a mask?

As to something weird you seen on a router - sure ok, I personally in all my years have never seen a router do anything of the sort. Not moving traffic of a IP just because it does not have a dhcp lease is counterproductive to being a router.. Or not allowing traffic because its in the dhcp scope but no lease? Like I said what if dhcp server was off because user want to run it else where. I find it unlikely anything of the sort is the users actual problem - but without pointing this stuff out, since user thinks your answer fixed his issue and you mention something odd in the router filtering it.. This is how FUD starts and spreads - which I don't like see happen.

Point made couple posts back about not setting static inside your scope - agreed, this is common practice if your going to do such a thing you normally set an exclusion up for that IP to not be part of the scope. But lets say you did do it - the router not routing the traffic because of that seems far fetched at best.

But without access to the router and what exactly the user was doing, it is unclear to what is going on. And when users are unclear of the actual problem let alone what the actual solution is - FUD happens, like for example the FUD that you have to be in the same workgroup to share files ;) Which is one that really needs to die with fire ;)

How do you think that fud got started? Someone on a forum somewhere prob asked a question are they in the same workgroup for someone that was having file sharing issues, not because they couldn't share files - but because the other machine was not listed in his browse list. Next thing you know, every time someone brings up filesharing someone parrot jumps in and asks if they are in the same workgroup ;)

I could see this starting a trend, hey my box is not using working on the network.. Some parrot reading this thread without the counterpoints I brought up saying -- hey your IP is too low, try .200 or above ;) Don't tell me that sort of stuff does not happen.. You have been around long enough..

Or hey how do I set static IP on my machine - make sure you use something above .200 ;)

I was in no way trying to blow anyone's skirt the wrong way, just trying to prevent what I see an issue - a problem with what the OP thinks is a solution that doesn't really address what the actual problem was.. This leads to FUD plain and simple.

[patseguin]

It's a Netgear R6300. I looked at my DHCP settings and the range is 2-254. So, I'm not sure why 15 didn't work and 100 did.

Edit: What us FUD?

[+BudMan]

What exactly happened when you tried setting .15 - you stated it went back to dhcp?? My point is that there is NOTHING on the router that could do that on your client.

There was a point made a couple posts back about not creating statics inside your dhcp scope, which is a valid one.

I suggest you change your scope to leave room either high or low or both for you to set statics if you so desire. Say change the scope to .100 to .200 this leave you ability to hand out 100 leases (I doubt you have anywhere close to that many machines) And then you can set statics between say .2 to .99 or .201 to .254 and not have to worry about stepping on a dhcp client IP.

If you have time after the holidays - be happy to TV in and take a look see to why you were unable to set .15 as static.

[+virtorio]

It's a Netgear R6300. I looked at my DHCP settings and the range is 2-254. So, I'm not sure why 15 didn't work and 100 did.

Edit: What us FUD?

Out of interest, did you try another number (like 16)?

 

FUD stands for 'fear, uncertainty and doubt', basically spreading misinformation as fact.