Static IPs and WRT54gs?

Thats my question... is it possible to use static IPs on a WRT54gs?
On both wired and wireless clients.

Justin wrote:
> Thats my question... is it possible to use static IPs on a WRT54gs?
> On both wired and wireless clients.
>

It's router that can issue DHCP IP(s) to wired or wireless client. So
why cannot a wire or wireless client wanting to use a static IP on the
router not use one?

The answer is it don't make any difference wired or wireless.

Duane

> Thats my question... is it possible to use static IPs on a WRT54gs?
> On both wired and wireless clients.

Sure, it's possible. You'd just have to track the addresses manually.

Using DHCP, however, is often quite worthwhile. Should there ever become a
need to renumber the subnet it's a pain in the ass to do manually. You have
to touch each and every workstation. Use DHCP and it's often no more
complicated than just rebooting them or using 'ipconfig /renew' on windows
boxes.

Why do you ask? What're you trying to accomplish?

Bill Kearney wrote:
> > Thats my question... is it possible to use static IPs on a WRT54gs?
> > On both wired and wireless clients.
>
> Sure, it's possible. You'd just have to track the addresses manually.
>
> Using DHCP, however, is often quite worthwhile. Should there ever become a
> need to renumber the subnet it's a pain in the ass to do manually. You have
> to touch each and every workstation. Use DHCP and it's often no more
> complicated than just rebooting them or using 'ipconfig /renew' on windows
> boxes.
>
> Why do you ask? What're you trying to accomplish?

I have printers and such on the network, I can't have their IP addies
changine all the time.
I don't need DHCP simply because this is going to be a small network at
my parent's house. A printer, two laptops and a desktop. I don't see
the point of DHCP unless there's a shitload of machines and it would
take an admin forever to goto each one - not to mention when the
network configurtion changes.
I tried DHCP with the current router - a BEFSR41, and the printer
jumped aroound. I don't know why. SO I went static.
Also, sometimes I have to forware ports to get IRC file transfers
working and junk like that.

On 29 Jun 2006 21:21:14 -0700, "Justin" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in <(E-Mail Removed) .com>:

>Bill Kearney wrote:
>> > Thats my question... is it possible to use static IPs on a WRT54gs?
>> > On both wired and wireless clients.
>>
>> Sure, it's possible. You'd just have to track the addresses manually.
>>
>> Using DHCP, however, is often quite worthwhile. Should there ever become a
>> need to renumber the subnet it's a pain in the ass to do manually. You have
>> to touch each and every workstation. Use DHCP and it's often no more
>> complicated than just rebooting them or using 'ipconfig /renew' on windows
>> boxes.
>>
>> Why do you ask? What're you trying to accomplish?
>
>I have printers and such on the network, I can't have their IP addies
>changine all the time.
>I don't need DHCP simply because this is going to be a small network at
>my parent's house. A printer, two laptops and a desktop. I don't see
>the point of DHCP unless there's a shitload of machines and it would
>take an admin forever to goto each one - not to mention when the
>network configurtion changes.
>I tried DHCP with the current router - a BEFSR41, and the printer
>jumped aroound. I don't know why. SO I went static.
>Also, sometimes I have to forware ports to get IRC file transfers
>working and junk like that.

The point of DHCP is that it facilitates network management while
helping to avoid problems. Better to have fixed addresses handed out by
DHCP than to do the whole thing manually.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

> >I have printers and such on the network, I can't have their IP addies
> >changine all the time.
> >I don't need DHCP simply because this is going to be a small network at
> >my parent's house. A printer, two laptops and a desktop. I don't see
> >the point of DHCP unless there's a shitload of machines and it would
> >take an admin forever to goto each one - not to mention when the
> >network configurtion changes.
> >I tried DHCP with the current router - a BEFSR41, and the printer
> >jumped aroound. I don't know why. SO I went static.
> >Also, sometimes I have to forware ports to get IRC file transfers
> >working and junk like that.

It's odd their addresses changed. Most DHCP leases will renew to the same
IP address. I've not seen many situations where a device wouldn't get the
same address back again. But it could happen if you had more devices than
you had DHCP addresses, or you have lease times set too short. Strange, but
with low-end devices you never know.

Printers are a great candidate for having an address that doesn't change.
Note, this doesn't have to be a static address. Were you using a DHCP
server that'd let you make reservations it'd be able to always give a
particular address to a given hardware MAC address (the ethernet interface).
But since most low-end routers don't support DHCP reservations (the wrt54gs
can't unless you use other firmware like dd-wrt) your correct option is to
use static addresses. Even if it's a small network I'd still encourage you
to use DHCP addresses on things that don't 'need' to be static. Even if you
used all static addresses you might want to leave the DHCP service enabled.
This to allow the addition of other devices later, or the replacement of an
existing one, without having to go figure out the static addresses again.

Just make sure you assign the static addresses from outside any range the
DHCP server might hand out. The WRT54gs will work just fine this way.

-Bill Kearney

> The point of DHCP is that it facilitates network management while
> helping to avoid problems. Better to have fixed addresses handed out by
> DHCP than to do the whole thing manually.

Well yeah, that's a staggeringly obvious statement. But one that does
nothing to answer the guy's problem, mainly because the firmware in those
devices can't DO THAT.

If you're not going to contribute an actual answer then why post at all?

Justin wrote:
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>
>>>Thats my question... is it possible to use static IPs on a WRT54gs?
>>>On both wired and wireless clients.
>>
>>Sure, it's possible. You'd just have to track the addresses manually.
>>
>>Using DHCP, however, is often quite worthwhile. Should there ever become a
>>need to renumber the subnet it's a pain in the ass to do manually. You have
>>to touch each and every workstation. Use DHCP and it's often no more
>>complicated than just rebooting them or using 'ipconfig /renew' on windows
>>boxes.
>>
>>Why do you ask? What're you trying to accomplish?
>
>
> I have printers and such on the network, I can't have their IP addies
> changine all the time.

The rule of thumb is to use a static IP for the printer if it's somehow
(print server I guess) connected to the router. You don't want the IP to
change as LAN computer that want to use the printer are locked in on the IP.

> I don't need DHCP simply because this is going to be a small network at
> my parent's house.

You don't have to use DHCP IP if you don't want to. It's buying you
nothing. Just configure the computers and printer to use static IP(s) on
the router.

> A printer, two laptops and a desktop. I don't see
> the point of DHCP unless there's a shitload of machines and it would
> take an admin forever to goto each one - not to mention when the
> network configurtion changes.

True

> I tried DHCP with the current router - a BEFSR41, and the printer
> jumped aroound. I don't know why. SO I went static.

That's what you should is go static IP.

> Also, sometimes I have to forware ports to get IRC file transfers
> working and junk like that.
>

On port forwarding as a rule of them should be forwarded to a LAN/IP
machine that's using a static IP, because if the machine's IP changes
for whatever reason, the forwarding rules will not work because the IP
it was forwarding to has changed.

Duane

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 01:06:31 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<V4-dnXIOWJTFLDnZnZ2dnUVZ_t-(E-Mail Removed)>:

>> >I have printers and such on the network, I can't have their IP addies
>> >changine all the time.
>> >I don't need DHCP simply because this is going to be a small network at
>> >my parent's house. A printer, two laptops and a desktop. I don't see
>> >the point of DHCP unless there's a shitload of machines and it would
>> >take an admin forever to goto each one - not to mention when the
>> >network configurtion changes.
>> >I tried DHCP with the current router - a BEFSR41, and the printer
>> >jumped aroound. I don't know why. SO I went static.
>> >Also, sometimes I have to forware ports to get IRC file transfers
>> >working and junk like that.
>
>It's odd their addresses changed. Most DHCP leases will renew to the same
>IP address. I've not seen many situations where a device wouldn't get the
>same address back again. But it could happen if you had more devices than
>you had DHCP addresses, or you have lease times set too short. Strange, but
>with low-end devices you never know.

Not strange at all, since many routers, particularly low end ones,
assign DHCP addresses from the lowest available address. Thus if client
A gets assigned address X, but happens to be turned off when the lease
for address X expires, then client B can get assigned address X, and
client A will later get assigned address Y, a different address, since X
is reserved to client B.

>Printers are a great candidate for having an address that doesn't change.
>Note, this doesn't have to be a static address. Were you using a DHCP
>server that'd let you make reservations it'd be able to always give a
>particular address to a given hardware MAC address (the ethernet interface).
>But since most low-end routers don't support DHCP reservations (the wrt54gs
>can't unless you use other firmware like dd-wrt) your correct option is to
>use static addresses.

In fact many low-end routers do support DHCP assignment by MAC address.
That these Linksys devices don't is one of the reasons I avoid them.

>Even if it's a small network I'd still encourage you
>to use DHCP addresses on things that don't 'need' to be static. Even if you
>used all static addresses you might want to leave the DHCP service enabled.
>This to allow the addition of other devices later, or the replacement of an
>existing one, without having to go figure out the static addresses again.
>
>Just make sure you assign the static addresses from outside any range the
>DHCP server might hand out. The WRT54gs will work just fine this way.

Good advice.

>> The point of DHCP is that it facilitates network management while
>> helping to avoid problems. Better to have fixed addresses handed out by
>> DHCP than to do the whole thing manually.
>
>Well yeah, that's a staggeringly obvious statement.

It's actually not at all obvious to many people.

>But one that does
>nothing to answer the guy's problem, mainly because the firmware in those
>devices can't DO THAT.

So he should be kept ignorant of better solutions?

>If you're not going to contribute an actual answer then why post at all?

1. If you can't be polite then why post at all?

2. I did give a useful answer.

3. The wikis listed in my sig block, which have a taken a great deal of
effort to compile, provide lots more information. Why not spend your
time contributing rather than criticizing.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

> >If you're not going to contribute an actual answer then why post at all?
>
> 1. If you can't be polite then why post at all?

Well, to actually give answers. Instead of impolite one-liners and pointers
to wiki pages that don't contain anything that actually addresses the
question asked.

> 2. I did give a useful answer.

We disagree.

> 3. The wikis listed in my sig block, which have a taken a great deal of
> effort to compile, provide lots more information. Why not spend your
> time contributing rather than criticizing.

Given your behavior in other newsgroups you should be familiar with why
people react negatively.

I'm less than enthusiastic about supporting a wiki where problematic egos
are involved. So, no thanks.

So you'd do well to lose your typical attitude and actually focus on
actually answering people. But seeing as how that hasn't changed during
your years of participation in other newsgroups I'm not holding my breath.

-Bill Kearney

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:26:32 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)> :

>> 2. I did give a useful answer.
>
>We disagree.

And there we have it, and leave it.

>> 3. The wikis listed in my sig block, which have a taken a great deal of
>> effort to compile, provide lots more information. Why not spend your
>> time contributing rather than criticizing.
>
>I'm less than enthusiastic about supporting a wiki where problematic egos
>are involved. So, no thanks.

I didn't think so. Why am I not surprised.

>[SNIP nasty remarks]

You have a serious attitude problem. Get help. Seriously.

Have a nice day.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>