Re: Router incompatibility with Vista

PeeGee wrote:
Dead Paul wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:11:35 +0000, Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:13:05 +0000, in uk.telecom.broadband , Dead
Paul <dead_paul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

(I wrote)

The answer is both yes and no. "No" there's no actual technical
requrement for it, but "yes" there's a real-world advantage for
end-users.
Depending on what apps are run the user may have to define
static ip's for port forwarding purposes.
Actually DHCP can handle this.

Firstly you can set the lease time to be long, and sometimes
infinite.

So it's not quite as straight forward as the "plug in and forget"
methodology so strongly advocated here.

Secondly, by default DHCP will re-offer the same address unless
its not available. On a home network that circumstance would be
highly unlikely.

Exactly! With computers being halted and brought up everyday the
odds are you could get the wrong ip. I have seen this happen on my
friends network all the time (apparently it's too hard for him to
set up static ips though he does try and set up port forwarding
and as a result he finds that certain apps wont connect).
Therefore if you have a home network and you use the routers
firewall you are best off using static ips with your port
forwarding.

I think you miss-interpreted here. It is unlikely the address would
be unavailable as there will rarely be more computers than
addresses.
Most computer operating systems will request the last leased address
when contacting the DHCP server, to provide continuity, and most
DHCP servers will grant that request unless a different device has
taken the address for some reason. Note that, in the case of XP, it
will often switch to a MS "private" address (167...?) if it is
refused the last address it had (though it takes about 50 refusals
to get to that stage) rather than accept a different address.

The other problem that seems to missed in this thread is the
difference between routers and computers providing DHCP services.
Computers build a table of leases and hold it as a file. This
allows them to reload the data at start up and continue to issue
the same address to the requesting device until such time that a
"new" computer requests an address and there are none in the
"unused" pool.
Routers do not have a mechanism (in general) to hold the information
when powered off, so will start from a clean sheet at power up
(possibly after re-boot also). There is no reason to lose this
information otherwise, as it is needed to prevent duplicate
addresses being issued.

2 points, it took me 1 try to get my print server to get the private
XP address, because my Internet radio had taken it's address.
As for routers, many of the cheaper end (& not so cheap) makes still
have the NAT stack overflow problem so will require a reset (or even
reboot themselves) which could scramble all routing on doing so.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Router incompatibility with Vista
    ... Depending on what apps are run the user may have to define static ip's ... Most computer operating systems will request the last leased address when contacting the DHCP server, to provide continuity, and most DHCP servers will grant that request unless a different device has taken the address for some reason. ... The other problem that seems to missed in this thread is the difference between routers and computers providing DHCP services. ...
    (uk.telecom.broadband)
  • Re: Router Question
    ... >Not all routers maintain NetBIOS to TCP/IP names and intercept the DNS ... On these the statics are nice so you can depend on ... The best of both worlds would be a DHCP server that allows reservations. ... computers always gets the same IP address... ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • IPSEC with certificates on Windows XP (Certificate don´t have a private key )
    ... I have a question for the Microsoft CSP and IPSEC. ... I have installed a small network of 4 computers. ... computers and two windows 2000 computers. ... The program certreq.exe generate a certificate request. ...
    (microsoft.public.platformsdk.security)
  • Re: WSE464: No policy could be found for this message.
    ... wouldn't it reject every request? ... >> and over again from numerous computers. ... >> from MY computer, hitting the same webserver, I did not have the ... >> What type of event would cause this to disappear and then reappear. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices.enhancements)
  • Re: Workgroup Security Help Needed.
    ... >>> computer in any workgroup can access a computer in any other workgroup ... Connect the Workgroup A computers to the first new router. ... The first network is for my own computers. ... >>> Broadband routers usually have only four LAN ports, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)