From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 3 15:20:43 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAB3AA3B for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:20:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bs1.fjl.org.uk (bs1.fjl.org.uk [84.45.41.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E1D71AAF for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:20:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.35] (host86-161-161-3.range86-161.btcentralplus.com [86.161.161.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by bs1.fjl.org.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rB3FKeZx000325 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:20:41 GMT (envelope-from frank2@fjl.co.uk) Message-ID: <529DF6C9.9080008@fjl.co.uk> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:20:41 +0000 From: Frank Leonhardt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dhcpd static binding problem References: <529DD95A.50103@fjl.co.uk> <529DE822.7060204@dat.pl> <529DEB6B.5000000@fjl.co.uk> <529DF302.5040200@dat.pl> In-Reply-To: <529DF302.5040200@dat.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:20:43 -0000 On 03/12/2013 15:04, Maciej Milewski wrote: > On 03.12.2013 15:32, Frank Leonhardt wrote: >> I wasn't! It was a typo and it was cut/pasted so subsequent entries, >> so thanks for spotting it as it's been driving me crazy. >> >> Next questions (assuming it now works): >> >> How come WINDOWXP-PC did get the address 192.168.1.194? Very weird. > Maybe that's windows fallback address, if you had earlier range up to > 199 and windows got 194? Maybe after reconfiguration dhcpd wasn't > restared? I have no more ideas. >> How come dhcpd didn't complain; even when I ran it with the -t option >> to check the config file, and the -d option to explain exactly what it >> was doing. Of course I didn't want to assign 192.16*9*.1.229, but I >> can't see why it didn't just do what I asked OR complain it was >> illegal? Just silently ignoring it wasn't very helpful. >> >> Regards, Frank. > I admit that's silence isn't helpful but have no idea if there is other > option. That's one of the services set-and-forget :) > You were quite correct - it was ignoring the out-of-range static address for some reason. I fixed the one for the Windows XP and picks up any address I give it. I guess it just kept asking for its dynamic address when it renewed, which it must have stored on disk over several weeks of being turned off, and was just lucky to get it back whenever it asked. Of course, once I'd cut/pasted the MAC from the arp cache to make really sure I didn't have any typos in there(!) I started looking through logs for a complicated reason - so thanks again for spotting the typo. I guess httpd isn't as smart as I though it was. (Unless anyone has a reason why this "ignore mistake" behaviour is desirable). Thanks, Frank.