Client lease time

Any reason I shouldn't make this as near infinite as possible to stop
disconnects?

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <9W2Lf.43589$(E-Mail Removed)> on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:27:01
GMT, "__spc__" <s p a m t i m e @ n t l w o r l d . c o m> wrote:

>Any reason I shouldn't make this as near infinite as possible

Can make reconfiguration a pain.

>to stop
>disconnects?

It won't cause disconnects.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:27:01 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , "__spc__"
<s p a m t i m e @ n t l w o r l d . c o m> wrote:

>Any reason I shouldn't make this as near infinite as possible to stop
>disconnects?

Nope, in a small home network there's no real need to use DHCP at all,
in fact, its just more convenient.
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

> Nope, in a small home network there's no real need to use DHCP at all,
> in fact, its just more convenient.

Depends, I have a couple of devices which offer no manual configuration
whatsoever. They can only get an address via DHCP.

David.

"__spc__" <s p a m t i m e @ n t l w o r l d . c o m> wrote in
news:9W2Lf.43589$(E-Mail Removed):

> Any reason I shouldn't make this as near infinite as possible

Setting a near-infinite time will mean that you risk consuming all
available addresses at some point in the future. Unlikely for most
SoHo users, but you did ask "Any reason...".

> stop disconnects?
Does not compute - what are you referring to? With a well-behaved
client and DHCP server, the lease renewal process should not cause
disruption to an existing connection.

The overhead of lease renewals is very low. I suggest you set a
fairly long, non-infinite, lease time (say 7 days?) and stop worrying
:-)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:37:35 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , David
Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Nope, in a small home network there's no real need to use DHCP at all,
>> in fact, its just more convenient.
>
>Depends, I have a couple of devices which offer no manual configuration
>whatsoever. They can only get an address via DHCP.

Thats pretty unusual for network devices. What are they? I've never
come across any network device that didn;t allow a fixed IP to be
entered, so it would be interesting to know.
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:27:01 GMT, "__spc__" <s p a m t i m e @ n t l w
o r l d . c o m> wrote:

>Any reason I shouldn't make this as near infinite as possible to stop
>disconnects?

Long DHCP leases will do nothing for disconnect problems.

Generally a bad idea. I have problems with long DHCP lease times with
hot spots. There are just too many wireless clients drifting around
that automagically associate with anything. They fill up the DHPC
leases and ARP table eventually causing a router crash or hang. For
open hot spots, I go for very short lease times. Of course, if you
have encryption enabled, this is not a problem.

Long lease times can also be replaced by "static DHCP". Lots of
routers have this feature. That's where you configure a specific MAC
address to always have the same IP address. That's handy when you
wanna do incoming port redirection but don't wanna setup a static IP
address on a laptop. The laptop may need to wander over to a
different system and the static IP's will need to be removed.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:13:35
+0000, Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:37:35 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , David
>Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> Nope, in a small home network there's no real need to use DHCP at all,
>>> in fact, its just more convenient.
>>
>>Depends, I have a couple of devices which offer no manual configuration
>>whatsoever. They can only get an address via DHCP.
>
>Thats pretty unusual for network devices. What are they? I've never
>come across any network device that didn;t allow a fixed IP to be
>entered, so it would be interesting to know.

The usual culprit is something basic like a printer server that lacks any sort
of interface.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

> Thats pretty unusual for network devices. What are they? I've never
> come across any network device that didn;t allow a fixed IP to be
> entered, so it would be interesting to know.

Hauppauge MVP Media Extender. It's a bit frustrating to be honest! I
won't go into details but one of mine is at such a position in the
network that if it changes address, I have to go and reconfigure a
security gateway.

I guess Hauppauge figure that with home use, you'll just use the
supplied software and all will be well except that there are other PVR
solutions which replace the Hauppauge software but don't include either
bootp or dhcp services hence it gets farmed out to something else and
with no option to configure a static address you're pretty much forced
one way or another.

David.