Mike Branda wrote:
>
> Chad, do you have access to the router's config via http or other
> interface?? I can only think of two answers. Both involve checking the
> router conf. You say that the router doesn't have that capability.....
> are you ABSOLUTELY sure?? Before I set up a linux box as my router, I
> had a cheapie linksys and the static arrangement was in an obscure
> spot. It seems silly that the feature is not there but who knows.
> Thinking out loud, if the DHCP range is not .1-.254, even if the router
> doesn't have a designated "static" section, you could assign a number
> outside the DHCP range. The only other thing I can think of is to
> assign a static number to the printer that is in the top of the DHCP
> range (like.250) that hopefully will never get auto assigned. This is a
> bit risky but it works. I've done it. The risk is reduced if you only
> have a few things on the network because the chances of them getting
> assigned the static number are obviously less. Most routers assign the
> first available number sequentially in my experience. This is definitely
> a hack but it's at least it's some kind of solution. You said that the
> printers won't take a name so neither of these would bust name
> resolution.
>
Yeah, the problem is that I can't designate a static range with this
router. I guess if I don't come up with anything by the time the IP
address renews, I'll just try assigning the printers static IPs high in
the DHCP range. I've never seen an autoassignment above 124 on this
network, so I should be okay if I pick a high-range number.
As far as I've been able to determine, the printers are not capable of
WINS resolution, and that's how the network is currently configured.
I'm gradually prevailing upon the boss to make some changes in network
architecture, and ultimately I hope to be running local DNS on a static
IP network with a DHCP subnet. I'm the guy that does most of the
network implementation and makes most of the practical execution
decisions, but actual overarching network policy gets handed to me.
C'est la vie.
The four-day DDoS we've been enjoying here ended today because I finally
convinced The Man that he needed to run some port diagnostics on his XP
workstation. He discovered that the DDoS was being prompted by
something that had been deposited on his system silently that had
escaped the notice of all his anti-malware software, and it took a port
diagnostic tool to notice the outgoing packets there that were inviting
the incoming pile of pings. It's moments like this that he kinda
glances askance at my Linux workstation and moves incrementally closer
to accepting my next suggestion for how to organize the network.
So, anyhow, the printer issue won't be an issue, eventually. For now,
I'll see how he feels about me plugging the network printers into
high-range addresses. He'll probably go for it, as long as I don't
suggest making the whole network static. Thanks for the suggestion: I'm
sorta preprogrammed to think of that as The Wrong Thing To Do, but
sometimes, with networking, two wrongs really do make a right, at least
temporarily.
-- Chad ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:30:47 EDT