# mrv stopped working



## kain976 (Mar 3, 2008)

I have had my dvrs networked with cat5 to my router since beta of the multiroom feature. Once out of beta, I opted in to pay the additional $3/mo for the multiroom feature. I was told then that D* offered a kit but it wasnt required. And that any other setup would not be supported.

Everything has worked fine, up until recently. The multiroom (now called Whole Home) feature has stopped working completely. I can still get On Demand stuff though. Upon many failed attempts of getting Whole Home working again, I have came to the conclusion D* has disabled this and is forcing me (if I want Whole Home) to buy additional equipment and have it installed.

This is what I have attempted :

restart router
soft & hard reset of dvr
network defaults - dvr - re-setup network thats succesfull

These are attempted in a certain order.

Am I missing anything? tia!

2x HR22-100


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Not sure why this post needed to be so big, for the number of lines of text, "but":
Check the status of Whole Home on each receiver.
If you're still authorized, it hasn't been turned off.
Check your IP addresses & subnet, to see if they're still the ones from your router.


----------



## kain976 (Mar 3, 2008)

I hope that looks better... 

Thanks for the suggestion but, if I had restored defaults in network of the dvr, and ran through the connection setup, doesnt it automatically grab an ip from the router?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

kain976 said:


> I hope that looks better...
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion but, if I had restored defaults in network of the dvr, and ran through the connection setup, doesnt it automatically grab an ip from the router?


"It should", but the point is to check and see if it/they have. If the two receivers aren't on the same subnet and getting their IP addresses from your router [say one is 169.xxx and the other is 192.xxx] this explains why it doesn't work.


----------



## Kevin872 (Aug 25, 2007)

I didn't see your original post but other than what VOS said above, have you checked the whole-home settings just to be sure that nothing has changed (such as sharing accidentally got disabled for some reason)? Also of course, rebooting your router, stuff like that. If for some reason the receivers don't think they are authorized, you can also try re-sending authorization to all of your receivers which can be done yourself via their website.


----------



## kain976 (Mar 3, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> "It should", but the point is to check and see if it/they have. If the two receivers aren't on the same subnet and getting their IP addresses from your router [say one is 169.xxx and the other is 192.xxx] this explains why it doesn't work.


Everything is good, I even changed the IP myself and everything checked ok & connected. Still no mrv.

Kevin - whole home is authorized and sharing is enabled. I have tried different combos of not sharing, network defaults resetting the dvrs and router. And still cant get the dvrs to share playlists. But, Im connected to the internet. I can get On Demand and youtube stuff.

I havent tried the reauthorizing thing... I will try it.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

kain976 said:


> Everything is good, I even changed the IP myself and everything checked ok & connected.


What do you mean by "everything is good"? What did you change the IP's to? Did you change the IP on the DVR (static IP) or router (reserved DHCP?)

It would be best to get more info in this situation; starting with the current IP's of your router and DVR's. Also, what is your DHCP pool range?


----------



## kain976 (Mar 3, 2008)

Test connection under network of the dvr. Everything checks out (ok\connected).

In advanced setup under network, I changed my IP's on both dvrs and everything checks out there too. I also went online and re-authorized both dvrs, but to no avail.

dsw - if I wasnt in my pool range my receivers wouldnt be online right? They both can access On Demand and stream youtube. Mrv just up and quit and I cant get it working again.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

kain976 said:


> Test connection under network of the dvr. Everything checks out (ok\connected).
> 
> In advanced setup under network, I changed my IP's on both dvrs and everything checks out there too. I also went online and re-authorized both dvrs, but to no avail.
> 
> dsw - if I wasnt in my pool range my receivers wouldnt be online right? They both can access On Demand and stream youtube. Mrv just up and quit and I cant get it working again.


If you changed your IP's on the DVR's then you would have to change them to something outside of the DHCP pool (otherwise there is the potential for a conflict.) Let's just keep it basic:

What are the IP addresses of your receivers?
Are they static or dynamic? (this is listed under info & test -> more system info -> network section
What is your router IP address?
What is your DHCP pool range?


----------



## kain976 (Mar 3, 2008)

dvr x : 192.168.0.110
dvr y : 192.168.0.111

static

192.168.0.1

192.168.0.100 - .199


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

kain976 said:


> dvr x : 192.168.0.110
> dvr y : 192.168.0.111
> 
> static
> ...


First change the DVR IP's to XXX.XXX.X.200 & XXX.XXX.X.201 (they need to be outside your DHCP range.) This is a "start" but may not fix your problem. If that doesn't work then you should take the router out of the mix. The DVR's can be connected by a single ethernet cable, or can be connected to an ethernet switch. Try these out, and let us know the results.

BTW -- What is shown on each DVR under Whole-Home -> status -> networked DVR's?


----------



## kain976 (Mar 3, 2008)

dsw - changing the ips did nothing, then removed router as you said. Mrv is now working. This means its my router. Thanks! 

The only thing is, that mrv was working before on the router. What could have changed??? What settings do I need to look for?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I have seen that changing the IP address in the advanced network setup screen does NOT actually change the address of the DVR unless you reboot it.

To the OP, it is possible that the switch part of your router has failed. If the DirecTV equipment is the only thing doing peer to peer communications on the Ethernet, you might not notice it elsewhere.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

kain976 said:


> dsw - changing the ips did nothing, then removed router as you said. Mrv is now working. This means its my router. Thanks!
> 
> The only thing is, that mrv was working before on the router. What could have changed??? What settings do I need to look for?


As Titan said a reboot of the DVR's might be worth a shot. Home routers are all-in-one devices, and it's certainly possible that one of the components has failed (or is at least no longer playing nicely with the DVR's.) After rebooting the DVR's you could try and hook them back to the router, and see what happens; try different combinations of ethernet ports on the router. I would also remove any further router connections prior to attaching the DVR's back to the router (computers, gaming systems, Blu Ray, etc,) and reboot the router

Speaking of ethernet ports, which ports are you using on your DVR's? What else is on your LAN, and does anything else have a static IP? How do you have MRV setup currently; direct cable connection between the DVR's or ethernet switch?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> As Titan said a reboot of the DVR's might be worth a shot. Home routers are all-in-one devices, and it's certainly possible that one of the components has failed (or is at least no longer playing nicely with the DVR's.) After rebooting the DVR's you could try and hook them back to the router, and see what happens; try different combinations of ethernet ports on the router. I would also remove any further router connections prior to attaching the DVR's back to the router (computers, gaming systems, Blu Ray, etc,) and reboot the router
> 
> Speaking of ethernet ports, which ports are you using on your DVR's? What else is on your LAN, and does anything else have a static IP? How do you have MRV setup currently; direct cable connection between the DVR's or ethernet switch?


"Sometimes" it takes a router rebooting too.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> "Sometimes" it takes a router rebooting too.





dsw2112 said:


> ...I would also remove any further router connections prior to attaching the DVR's back to the router (computers, gaming systems, Blu Ray, etc,) and *reboot the router*...


----------



## kain976 (Mar 3, 2008)

Problem solved.

Thanks Titan and dsw but that went unsuccessful. I did unplug all cat5 cables from router and then factory reset the router. I then reset the dvrs network to defaults and did a soft reset. After the dvrs booted up I plugged the cat5 cables to the router and ran the network setup on the dvrs.

Everything works now! Somehow my router just went goofy I guess.

Thank you people for all your help!


----------



## kain976 (Mar 3, 2008)

I also set the ips outside of my dhcp range as suggested.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

kain976 said:


> I also set the ips outside of my dhcp range as suggested.


Networking 101.

Static IP addresses should always be set outside of the DHCP scope used by your network. If you want to use DHCP but guarantee that your devices get the same IP addresses all the time, you can use DHCP reservations...


----------



## gregftlaud (Nov 20, 2005)

Question ....one of the suggestions for a fix for this was to put your dvr's IP outside of the DHCP range. Why do that?

I have every device in my home that connects to my router on a static ip so nothing conflicts...including my dvr's (in the LAN setup on my router). Since i have that kind of setup is it better still for me to have my DVR's outside the DHCP range. Just curious. Having no issues here but just wondering what the best setup is.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

gregftlaud said:


> Question ....one of the suggestions for a fix for this was to put your dvr's IP outside of the DHCP range. Why do that?
> 
> I have every device in my home that connects to my router on a static ip so nothing conflicts...including my dvr's (in the LAN setup on my router). Since i have that kind of setup is it better still for me to have my DVR's outside the DHCP range. Just curious. Having no issues here but just wondering what the best setup is.


If you're using static IP's they HAVE to be outside of teh DHCP pool. The reason; the router knows which addresses from the pool it has "handed out." It did not hand out the static IP, so the router still believes that address is available. You can end up with two devices with the same IP when you use this method.


----------



## gregftlaud (Nov 20, 2005)

Hmm interesting i've been using static ip's from inside the dhcp since i've gotten a router and never had an issue. All devices are always running also.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I have used "Static" IP Addresses in the DHCP Reservations List and Never had a Problem even though technically these are not True "Static' IP Addresses but Quasi "Static" IP Addresses.

If you use a True Static IP Address outside of the DHCP Range then it is Never Reassigned after the DHCP Lease Period runs out which is safer the using the DHCP Reservations List Method but I Never had a problem using this method.


----------



## gregftlaud (Nov 20, 2005)

Same here i have 8 devices that connect to my router so i have DHCP range setup between 192.168.1.2 thru 192.168.1.9 .....8 available. Then have each device assigned an ip within that range.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

gregftlaud said:


> ...and never had an issue...


"Well", most pools are 50 to 100 IP's; so the odds are lower if you only have several devices on your LAN. But why would you want to chance it?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

gregftlaud said:


> Same here i have 8 devices that connect to my router so i have DHCP range setup between 192.168.1.2 thru 192.168.1.9 .....8 available. Then have each device assigned an ip within that range.


What will you do when you add a 9th device? Change the DHCP pool to 192.168.1.2 - 192.168.1.10? Should something connect to your network (via DHCP) with your current setup you will have 2 devices with the same address...


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

gregftlaud said:


> Same here i have 8 devices that connect to my router so i have DHCP range setup between 192.168.1.2 thru 192.168.1.9 .....8 available. Then have each device assigned an ip within that range.


If you are setting static IP addresses for _*every*_ device on your network, then the DHCP server is never handing out any of the addresses. For all intents and purposes why even have it turned on?. I have a few devices like my smartphone, an iPad that are on an off my network frequently, so unless I want to mess with them constantly, DHCP is the only way to go. As someone already mentioned, if you have any devices that are actually set to DHCP, they could be handed out one of the addresses that another device already has if you use static addresses in the DHCP scope range.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

CCarncross said:


> If you are setting static IP addresses for _*every*_ device on your network, then the DHCP server is never handing out any of the addresses. For all intents and purposes why even have it turned on?. I have a few devices like my smartphone, an iPad that are on an off my network frequently, so unless I want to mess with them constantly, DHCP is the only way to go. As someone already mentioned, if you have any devices that are actually set to DHCP, they could be handed out one of the addresses that another device already has if you use static addresses in the DHCP scope range.


You want to Assign Static IP Addresses to things such as Printers, DVRs, Gaming etc. and not PCs so that their IP Address and Port Assignments Never Change. You don't need DHCP in this case for Security like you do in a PC because no one wants to get access to your DVR or Printer but they do want Access to your PC.

DHCP is for those devices that you want to change their IP Address occasionally for security purposes and DVRs or Printers do not fall into that category.

If for some reason you Do Not Want to Assign a Truly Static IP Address then you can use DHCP Reservations which is a Quasi "Static" IP Address Assignment that is reassigned every time your Lease runs out so the IP Address Never changes.

This helped my MRV to work better and more consistently and I am not exactly sure why but we here at DBSTALK came to the conclusion that "Static" IP Addresses that Never change seem to eliminate a lot of MRV Problems.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

"Richierich" said:


> You want to Assign Static IP Addresses to things such as Printers, DVRs, Gaming etc. and not PCs so that their IP Address and Port Assignments Never Change. You don't need DHCP in this case for Security like you do in a PC because no one wants to get access to your DVR or Printer but they do want Access to your PC.
> 
> DHCP is for those devices that you want to change their IP Address occasionally for security purposes and DVRs or Printers do not fall into that category.
> 
> ...


Yes, using Reserved DHCP is a way to have static IP addresses, but using the DHCP server on the router. As for the reason why static IP addresses work better for unsupported MRV, when the lease expired and was renewed by the DVR, it would not renew correctly. While the receiver would think it had renewed, there was some disconnect in that it had not.

On my network, I have my DHCP range set for 20 devices. I then use DHCP Reservations for all my devices. That leaves about 5 IP addresses for other devices that I might have connected to my network, like a guest or a PC/laptop that I am repairing.

- Merg


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

The Merg said:


> On my network, I have my DHCP range set for 20 devices. I then use DHCP Reservations for all my devices. That leaves about 5 IP addresses for other devices that I might have connected to my network, like a guest or a PC/laptop that I am repairing.
> - Merg


That is the way I have mine setup but if I had to do it all over again I would set the DVRs up as True "Static" IP Addresses outside of the DHCP Range so they would Never have to be Renegoiated which is what happens with DHCP Reservations even though they are reassigned the same IP Address but I wonder could the Port change.

If so that could cause a problem.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Richierich said:


> You want to Assign Static IP Addresses to things such as Printers, DVRs, Gaming etc. and not PCs so that their IP Address and Port Assignments Never Change. You don't need DHCP in this case for Security like you do in a PC because no one wants to get access to your DVR or Printer but they do want Access to your PC.
> 
> DHCP is for those devices that you want to change their IP Address occasionally for security purposes and DVRs or Printers do not fall into that category.


As an FYI DHCP vs Static has nothing to do with security; it's just a way to customize your IP addressing.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

dsw2112 said:


> As an FYI DHCP vs Static has nothing to do with security; it's just a way to customize your IP addressing.


Then why doesn't it assign the IP Addresses in a Sequential mode and not in a random mode. So it can constantly change your IP Address to limit others getting into your system.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Richierich said:


> Then why doesn't it assign the IP Addresses in a Sequential mode and not in a random mode. So it can constantly change your IP Address to limit others getting into your system.


It really depends on the router as to how addresses are "given" via DHCP. In any case, changing your IP address has nothing to do with someone accessing your system. This is what hardware and software firewalls are for.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> It really depends on the router as to how addresses are "given" via DHCP.


While I've only had three routers, DHCP has always given out the addresses in a "non random" way. Not sure if they've gone "one two three", but my IPs have always been grouped together.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Then why not have DHCP Always Assign Static IP Addresses and Never Change them???

There has to be a reason why DHCP exists in the first place and assigns IP Addresses Dynamically and in a random manner within the constraints of the DHCP Range.

Why would DHCP Ever need to change an IP Address if not for Security and yes just one level of security as I do have a Firewall, etc.? 

I was told it was for security purposes originally even though we are way beyond that now as needing better stroner methods of securing our PCs safely


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Richierich said:


> Then why not have DHCP Always Assign Static IP Addresses and Never Change them???
> 
> There has to be a reason why DHCP exists in the first place and assigns IP Addresses Dynamically and in a random manner within the constraints of the DHCP Range.
> 
> ...


DHCP exists to allow an easy way for a device to connect to a network (it's automatic, and requires little user involvement.) DHCP addresses change because they're a lease. Static IP's are useful for devices that are accessed by other devices (servers are a good example.)

Changing an IP address does little for security. Once someone is on the network they can "listen" to the network traffic, and determine what devices are on which IP.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Richierich said:


> Then why not have DHCP Always Assign Static IP Addresses and Never Change them???


What happens when there are many users?
I once worked somewhere that had too many users, so if someone wanted to print something, they had to run around asking for someone else to log off.
If a router always assigned a static IP address, what happens to the addresses no longer being used? While this may not happen in a home network, if enough MAC addresses changed, at some point the router would run out of addresses.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Richierich said:


> Then why not have DHCP Always Assign Static IP Addresses and Never Change them???
> 
> There has to be a reason why DHCP exists in the first place and assigns IP Addresses Dynamically and in a random manner within the constraints of the DHCP Range.
> 
> ...


Your seemingly random IP distribution is not for security reasons but to avoid duplicate IP addresses.

For example, if an address was given out to device A and then that device went away, even though the lease expired the DHCP would keep it back as long as it can to avoid conflict.

Also a good tip for security, especially with wireless access points in the system.

1. Give Reservations to all devices - especially at home, and block anything else or only leave 1 or two spares.
2. Change your subnet mask. If you use 255.255.255.0 as subnet mask you are allowing up to 255 devices on the network. If you dont have that many devices then reduce it by changing the mask (PM me for mask details). Otherwise I could jump onto your network and give myself a static ip and have 255 chances of not getting a conflict even though you restricted DHCP to 10 addresses.
3. Change the default address range from 192.168.1.xxx to 192.168.yyy.xxx as most hackers will use this as default. It wont slow them down much but will help.

Sorry for thread drift


----------



## zx10guy (Nov 16, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> What happens when there are many users?
> I once worked somewhere that had too many users, so if someone wanted to print something, they had to run around asking for someone else to log off.
> If a router always assigned a static IP address, what happens to the addresses no longer being used? While this may not happen in a home network, if enough MAC addresses changed, at some point the router would run out of addresses.


I did a deployment for work where I was responsible for standing up a 8 floor building with several hundred users with the requisite storage and servers. First you need to scope appriopriately for the current size of the network and then allow for room for future growth. Doing the upfront planning is the key in designing a proper network which works into the future. In addition, you can control the lease time of addresses being issued by the DHCP server. This will determine when a DHCP renew happens for a currently issued IP address. Decreasing this time causes inactive leases to expire more quickly at the expense of higher network traffic which depending on what is running on the network can be a big deal. So you need to strike up an appropriate balance. Also, better DHCP servers will do things such as pinging an IP address which the server wants to issue to determine if anything answers on the network. If something answers, the DHCP server will just move to the next address in the pool.


----------



## zx10guy (Nov 16, 2008)

dsw2112 said:


> DHCP exists to allow an easy way for a device to connect to a network (it's automatic, and requires little user involvement.) DHCP addresses change because they're a lease. Static IP's are useful for devices that are accessed by other devices (servers are a good example.)
> 
> Changing an IP address does little for security. Once someone is on the network they can "listen" to the network traffic, and determine what devices are on which IP.


Agreed. Having DHCP running on your network isn't a security issue nor having statically assigned addresses a security step either. In large networks, having everything statically assigned is just asking for large headaches in IP address management. I've seen it and it isn't pretty. I had to tear down what a predecessor did with his foolish design on IP addressing to make the network workable and manageable. The first thing that happened after I transitioned to a properly designed DHCP setup was the close support staff thanking me for making their life so much easier. And the funny thing was that the network I put together was many times more secure than what my predecessor had with his funky static assignment scheme.


----------



## zx10guy (Nov 16, 2008)

F1 Fan said:


> Your seemingly random IP distribution is not for security reasons but to avoid duplicate IP addresses.
> 
> For example, if an address was given out to device A and then that device went away, even though the lease expired the DHCP would keep it back as long as it can to avoid conflict.
> 
> ...


The best security practice for wireless is to use the strongest encryption available which means upgrading hardware if needed. Currently for home use, WPA2 is the best encryption available. Also, the use of strong passphrases is the next best practice which mitigates dictionary/brute force attacks.


----------



## zx10guy (Nov 16, 2008)

Something else I forgot to mention on this topic of DHCP as a security risk. The reason why some people felt turning off DHCP is a security step is to slow down someone with unauthorized access who has "physical" access to your network. But there are ways today to mitigate unauthorized physical access such 802.1x.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

While this may be all well and good, the topic really is: *mrv stopped working
*[and not DHCP]


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> What happens when there are many users?
> I once worked somewhere that had too many users, so if someone wanted to print something, they had to run around asking for someone else to log off.
> If a router always assigned a static IP address, what happens to the addresses no longer being used? While this may not happen in a home network, if enough MAC addresses changed, at some point the router would run out of addresses.


Some Very Good Points which is Why I Posed the Question.

I need Enlightenment.

Thanks, Guys for your Responses.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Richierich said:


> Then why doesn't it assign the IP Addresses in a Sequential mode and not in a random mode.


Chances are pretty good that the router assigns addresses based on a hash of the MAC address. This brings a modicum of uniqueness while making repeatability likely.

I worry about routers that give out seemingly random assignments with each renewal.


----------



## zx10guy (Nov 16, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> While this may be all well and good, the topic really is: *mrv stopped working
> *[and not DHCP]


The question was asked as to certain topics around DHCP to even include you per quoted below.

So I don't know what your problem is as this isn't the first time you've interjected like this.



veryoldschool said:


> What happens when there are many users?
> I once worked somewhere that had too many users, so if someone wanted to print something, they had to run around asking for someone else to log off.
> If a router always assigned a static IP address, what happens to the addresses no longer being used? While this may not happen in a home network, if enough MAC addresses changed, at some point the router would run out of addresses.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

zx10guy said:


> The question was asked as to certain topics around DHCP to even include you per quoted below.
> 
> So I don't know what your problem is as this isn't the first time you've interjected like this.


And at what point does it wander beyond the topic, or the context of MRV?
"For me" was after your forth post in a row without anyone replying to them.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, back to the Topic. 

I highly recommend "Static" IP Addresses to avoid problems associated between the Router, the DVRs and MRV (WHDVR Service) as many of us in the past have concluded that this helps eliminate a lot of MRV Problems that we could not pinpoint as to why but they happened and were eliminated by the above Fix!!!


----------



## zx10guy (Nov 16, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> And at what point does it wander beyond the topic, or the context of MRV?
> "For me" was after your forth post in a row without anyone replying to them.


You're free not to read them. And I'll certainly not repond to any of your questions now as you feel they're wandering.

I was replying to specific posts either answering questions or clarifying points that were off shoots from the discussion of DHCP and security.

Maybe no one is replying to my posts as maybe I've answered those specific questions and there's no need to discuss further.

It seems that you have issues with people who can deep dive into specific topics further than what you can.

My posts stand as they are and if you feel compelled to have the moderators close or delete my posts here...go right ahead.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Richierich said:


> Well, back to the Topic.
> 
> I highly recommend "Static" IP Addresses to avoid problems associated between the Router, the DVRs and MRV (WHDVR Service) as many of us in the past have concluded that this helps eliminate a lot of MRV Problems that we could not pinpoint as to why but they happened and were eliminated by the above Fix!!!


Having been "some what" lol involved with MRV, some routers handle it well, and some don't as well. For those that lose connection, going with static [and outside the DHCP range] has proven to work.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

zx10guy said:


> You're free not to read them. And I'll certainly not repond to any of your questions now as you feel they're wandering.
> 
> I was replying to specific posts either answering questions or clarifying points that were off shoots from the discussion of DHCP and security.
> 
> ...


You made some good posts, which wasn't the point, nor was anyone being able to go farther into a subject than myself.
"The point", was more to get back to the thread topic, and not turn this in to who can "out network" the next poster.


----------



## zx10guy (Nov 16, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> You made some good posts, which wasn't the point, nor was anyone being able to go farther into a subject than myself.
> "The point", was more to get back to the thread topic, and not turn this in to who can "out network" the next poster.


I understand your point and this will be the last thing I'll say to keep from de-railing the thread. Some of my posts in direct response to posts where a question wasn't answered but was an answer to question was to bring up what I feel as misinformation or a bit misleading. I post what I post to try to help people understand topics around networking and if I feel there are things that I see as inaccurate or not correct, I will point it out.

If you want to continue this discussion or anyone else for that matter, can reach me via PM.

Back to the topic.


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> If you want to use DHCP but guarantee that your devices get the same IP addresses all the time, you can use DHCP reservations...


I never really understood why anyone would use reservations. For a mobile device maybe, but IMO it makes life a whole lot simpler just to use static IPs to begin with and never have to worry about DHCP.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

poppo said:


> I never really understood why anyone would use reservations. For a mobile device maybe, but IMO it makes life a whole lot simpler just to use static IPs to begin with and never have to worry about DHCP.


BINGO!!! We have a Winner!!! :hurah:

P.S. For the answer to your question, those of us who have done it, didn't know better until later after we had done it. It was explained to me why TRUE "STATIC" IP ADDRESSES are much better and don't have to have their leases renegotiated ever.


----------



## chrpai (Oct 27, 2007)

poppo said:


> I never really understood why anyone would use reservations. For a mobile device maybe, but IMO it makes life a whole lot simpler just to use static IPs to begin with and never have to worry about DHCP.


I can explain that one for you. Ease of (centralized) management.

Let's say you have 100 VM's that are servers. Heck, for that matter it could be 100 print servers. You want to give them all a fixed address and make your life as easy as possible so you can still take 2 hour lunches.

You could create an excel document with the hostnames and IP addresses an then configure all 100 of these end points with their network setttings and then hope that no one ever jacks it up. This will involve either walking over to the device, or writing some scripts to remotely configure them.

Or you could create 100 reservations on your DHCP server and just leave those 100 devices alone.

The 100 reservations are authoritative. The excel sheet? Well we hope the techs did it that way. And if you need to change an address you just update the reservation rather then update the excel and go reconfigure the device.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

poppo said:


> I never really understood why anyone would use reservations. For a mobile device maybe, but IMO it makes life a whole lot simpler just to use static IPs to begin with and never have to worry about DHCP.


For home use you are 100% correct, but in an environment with 100's or 1000's of devices, DHCP and reservations when necessary is critical to be able to manage things. Someone with a dozen or so IP devices, static addressing is fine...


----------

