Asus RT-N66U Firmware version 3.0.0.4.376.3861

[wouterv]

A dynamic pool of 200-255 will give you a total of 55 addresses the router will be able to handle, that is the dynamic assigned addresses PLUS the fixed assigned.
I guess that will do it for you, otherwise set the pool to 150-255.

 

[Baz8755]

A dynamic pool of 200-255 will give you a total of 55 addresses the router will be able to handle, that is the dynamic assigned addresses PLUS the fixed assigned.
I guess that will do it for you, otherwise set the pool to 150-255.

Can't quite go that low so have expanded to 180-254, hopefully that will be enough

My highest allocated IP is 140 but at the rate I seem to be adding new devices a 40 address buffer should be sufficient

Thanks

 

[wouterv]

Can't quite go that low so have expanded to 180-254, hopefully that will be enough

My highest allocated IP is 140 but at the rate I seem to be adding new devices a 40 address buffer should be sufficient

Thanks

All right.
Be sure to report back in some time if this fixed your issue (or not).

 

[bluepoint]

Can't quite go that low so have expanded to 180-254, hopefully that will be enough

My highest allocated IP is 140 but at the rate I seem to be adding new devices a 40 address buffer should be sufficient

Thanks

I think what wouterv is trying to tell you is to assign your fixed(DHCP reserved IP) within the DHCP range. Use the outside range IP for clients that you assigned statically.

 

[wouterv]

I think what wouterv is trying to tell you is to assign your fixed(DHCP reserved IP) within the DHCP range. Use the range IP for clients that you assigned statically.

No way, Baz8755 does it right.
Manual assigned IP adresses (the list in the router) and static assigned IP addresses (local in the client device) shall not be in the range specified by IP Pool Starting Address and IP Pool Ending Address.

 

[bluepoint]

No way, Baz8755 does it right.
Manual assigned IP adresses (the list in the router) and static assigned IP addresses (local in the client device) shall not be in the range specified by IP Pool Starting Address and IP Pool Ending Address.

DHCP reserved(manual assigned IP addresses in the router) is meant to be used within the DHCP range and client static assignment must be assigned outside of the DHCP range to prevent conflicts.

 

[wouterv]

DHCP reserved(manual assigned IP addresses in the router) is meant to be used within the DHCP range and client static assignment must be assigned outside of the DHCP range to prevent conflicts.

I still disagree.
The pool between start and end address is the range of IP addresses the router can freely distribute and manage when ever a client request an address.
Any other IP address shall not be in the range of that pool.
All LAN IP addresses shall be within the same subnet though.

One thing I know for sure, with my RT-N66U it works reliable as explained above: assigned addresses are not in the pool.

There are more advanced devices where you can exclude IP addresses from the given DHCP pool, SOHO routers are not that advanced, at least I would not rely on that.

 

[Baz8755]

I still disagree.
The pool between start and end address is the range of IP addresses the router can freely distribute and manage when ever a client request an address.
Any other IP address shall not be in the range of that pool.
All LAN IP addresses shall be within the same subnet though.

One thing I know for sure, with my RT-N66U it works reliable as explained above: assigned addresses are not in the pool.

There are more advanced devices where you can exclude IP addresses from the given DHCP pool, SOHO routers are not that advanced, at least I would not rely on that.

This is exactly how I have set up all my previous ProSafe routers in the past without issue. Switched to Asus about a year ago and assumed it would be the same.

 

[jlake]

This is exactly how I have set up all my previous ProSafe routers in the past without issue. Switched to Asus about a year ago and assumed it would be the same.

For many years it was normal to have DHCP reservations outside the DHCP pool on Cisco routers, Microsoft servers, and even Linksys routers (and others). Newer Linksys routers no longer allow you to create a DHCP reservation outside of the DHCP pool.

Bottom line is it doesn't really matter anymore for consumer routers just as long as you reserve it.

 

[bluepoint]

I still disagree.
The pool between start and end address is the range of IP addresses the router can freely distribute and manage when ever a client request an address.
Any other IP address shall not be in the range of that pool.
All LAN IP addresses shall be within the same subnet though.

If the OP has assigned fixed ip's on all his clients outside of the DHCP pool, why did you recommended expanding the DHCP range a little bigger when it's not needed? It's unnecessary and doesn't have to do with his problem.

 

[wouterv]

If the OP has assigned fixed ip's on all his clients outside of the DHCP pool, why did you recommended expanding the DHCP range a little bigger when it's not needed? It's unnecessary and doesn't have to do with his problem.

Read my first answer to the OP and follow the link given there to read about a little bug.

 

[bluepoint]

Read my first answer to the OP and follow the link given there to read about a little bug.

The bug in the link doesn't have to do with the OP's problem. The bug mentioned is that after a firmware upgrade, the fixed assigned IP's for clients were not being followed, instead each clients were asking the DHCP server for an IP. Being there were only 8 pooled IP, naturally the 24 clients will be more than the server could give. However, I don't remember the OP mentioned not getting an IP, so were is the relation? If this is the case, wouldn't it be better for him to assign the clients reserved IP within the DHCP range? That way all clients are accounted for plus unassigned IP's for transient clients?

 

[wouterv]

The bug in the link doesn't have to do with the OP's problem. The bug mentioned is that after a firmware upgrade, the fixed assigned IP's for clients were not being followed, instead each clients were asking the DHCP server for an IP. Being there were only 8 pooled IP, naturally the 24 clients will be more than the server could give. However, I don't remember the OP mentioned not getting an IP, so were is the relation? If this is the case, wouldn't it be better for him to assign the clients reserved IP within the DHCP range? That way all clients are accounted for plus unassigned IP's for transient clients?

Sorry, I don't think we shall argue here about what we believe to read or believe to remember.
There are often multiple solutions for one problem, some may be proven, others may be theorethical.
I am curious to the OP experiences after implementing what I have suggested.

 

[Baz8755]

Sorry, I don't think we shall argue here about what we believe to read or believe to remember.
There are often multiple solutions for one problem, some may be proven, others may be theorethical.
I am curious to the OP experiences after implementing what I have suggested.

I will be monitoring the situation and should know within a week or two. I just hope this is the solution

 

[Baz8755]

OK,

Having now read the link supplied by wouterv (my bad for being too busy to do more than just skim read) I think the diagnosis is correct. The problem does seem to be fixed and I now fully understand why.

My home network design for at least the past 15 years has been
192.168.0.1-9 - Routers
192.168.0.9-127 - Wired LAN
192.168.128-239 - Wireless
192.168.0.240+ DHCP

I rarely, if ever have any machines on my network that are not set up as reserved IP/MAC as I run a very locked down system and any guest machines connect in via one of my old ProSafe routers running as firewalled red network.

I have been using and setting up networks both at home and at work for the past 25 years (anyone remember 10BaseT?) and have always reserved addresses outside of DHCP range (although in the early days I ran everything fixed IP) as I have seen IP's get allocated from within DHCP that also exist in reserved table.

It seems to me that Asus have made a mistake with the DHCP setting as it should be DHCP-range + Reserved addresses.

Anyway the workaround of expanding the size of DHCP to cover the number of reserved devices plus a few seems to be holding up, although I must admit I was surprised to see how many of my devices had concurrent leases.

A big thank you to wouterv, now we just need Asus to fix their firmware.

As a side issue I am wondering if this may have contributed to a logging in issue I have been having with my 8.1 Pro Laptop. For the past couple of months I have had a problem about once a week where logging in would take 10 mins as opposed to 10 seconds, I had attributed the issue to a M$ patch or A/V issue. However I began to find a pattern that it would occur most at weekends, in hindsight this is probably when more of my devices may have connected within the past 24 hours, so given what I now know I may well have been having problems with my DHCP and somehow upsetting windows. This is something else I will now be keeping a close eye on.

 

[wouterv]

Thanks go to Greg Hope for first reporting the DHCP table size issue.
10BaseT is what quickly evolved to todays Cat5, 6 or 7 cable, still amazing how robust and reliable a RJ45 connector turned out to be.
10Base2 and 10Base5 were fun, in a time without hackers there were only missing terminators ;-)

 

[Baz8755]

Thanks go to Greg Hope for first reporting the DHCP table size issue.
10BaseT is what quickly evolved to todays Cat5, 6 or 7 cable, still amazing how robust and reliable a RJ45 connector turned out to be.
10Base2 and 10Base5 were fun, in a time without hackers there were only missing terminators ;-)

Oops typo, meant 10Base2

 

[RMerlin]

now we just need Asus to fix their firmware.

They already fixed it weeks ago.

 

[wouterv]

They already fixed it weeks ago.

Is it one of the undocumented fixes in 3.0.0.4.378 ?

 

[Baz8755]

Still in Beta ATM. I'll wait it out with the workaround for now.