R9000 not respecting Static IP's for Devices

---

antinode wrote:

   Firmware version?  Connected to what?

When you say "Connected to what?", i'm confused, i was pretty clear on what was connecting to it. The internet port is connected with a Cat 5E cable going straight to the ethernet port on the wall, its fiber. Port 1 on the router goes to a switch that connects to a server and several computers. The server has multiple VM's on it, and several devices and VM's on the network need static IP address.

---

antinode wrote:

   Terminology: A "static" address is configured on the device itself.
What you configure on a (DHCP server on a) router is a reserved dynamic
address, not a static address.

---

To correct you:

Static IP's are IP address that do not changed. They are usually permanently assigned by the DHCP server (and configured there too) and handed out based on the connecting devices MAC address, as long as that mac address is assigned to a reserved IP address on the DHCP server.

Static IP addresses can be configured on both the client and the server, however, the server may not accept your request for the specified IP address if setup on the client only, in that case, the server would assign something different which then the client can deny (most OS's and devices deny it) and as you said, you'd get a self-assigned IP address (169.254.#.#). 

Dynamic IP addresses are IP addresses that are handed out by DHCP servers (typically on a server or through routers), they are the most common type of IP address and they will change after your DHCP lease on that IP address expires. This router has a maximum of 24 hours on a lease and thats what i have it set to, so if i dont login on a device for over 24 hours, then the next time i login i'll have a different IP address. Or if i reboot the router because that for some reason seems to clear leases on devices that dont immediately reconnect... sometimes...

I need static IP addresses configured so that when I visit my webmail, connect to my NAS devices, configure my network printer, or others, port forwarding will route to the proper VM or device on my network. Without static IP address, the IP's could change and i'll have to do some updates that can be time consuming. If i'm not home, this can cause some significant problems if i'm unable to connect remotely (or am unaware of the issue).

I typically run my DHCP Server on Windows Server 2019, but something is wrong with my server and for the past year, my entire network suffers from random disconnects that force me to reboot the server each time, taking down all my devices, services, and internet for the entire network (its much more complicated than a typical home network). Microsoft has no clue what it is and as a final suggestion, they've told me to reinstall windows, which i cannot do.

I did resolve the issue myself using the method i mentioned above, it didnt work at first but after a few tries I did end up getting it to work. I blocked the IP addresses taken by the other devices in Security > Access Control, then I turned off the conflicting device, followed by allowing it again (since its off, it wont renew the IP lease). Once i tried reconnecting with my static IP configured, it worked. If i did not disable other devices trying to reconnect to that same IP address, then the server would assign an IP address itself (169.254.#.#). After connecting with the proper IP, i turned on those other devices again to let them connect. I did sometimes have some issues and even though nothing had the IP i wanted to assign, it still self-assigned an IP. So i tried again and after a few times it worked.

Ok, so now let me help you out antinode. Some of your comments are quite rude and condescending. 

---

antinode wrote:

Connected to what?

---

I understand that you were confused, but if you put the conversation into context, it should be quite easy to understand what i was talking about. I was pretty clear and used examples when i couldnt be.

---

antinode wrote:

> I found an older thread [...]

 

   Thanks for the helpful link.

---

What you should have said was "Could you please provide the link to that thread?" and i would have responded with it. Instead you decided to respond with a smartass comment as though i did something wrong that i should have corrected. I originally included the key elements of that entire thread so nobody had to go read through it. There's no other helpful information on that thread.

---

antinode wrote:

> [...] I usually get shouted at when I suggest things like that, [...]

 

   Perhaps the (invisible) details of your suggestions would explain any
such objections.  For example, assigning static addresses which are
still in the DHCP address pool would justify a loud objection.

This was the response by michaelkenward  who actually provided a response with significant value over yours. The invisible details that you somehow missed were embeded in the context of the entire response. Reading comprehension is important. Those invisible details are simple, he's saying to configure the Static IP addresses on the devices themselves rather than on the router. This was actually a part of my solution so thank you Michael!

---

antinode wrote:

> [...] it just works for me.

   _Which_ "it"?  Properly done, using static addresses should work for
anyone.  I use them on many of my devices, especially older ones where
DHCP is not supported.  But, as usual, there are right ways and wrong
ways to do things, and some people have trouble telling them apart.

---

Again, thats michaelkenward's response, but seriously.... Context... Up your reading comprehension skills and you'll understand what he said. When he said "it" he's talking about his solution, his solutoin works for him when he does it.

At the very least, i thank you for at least typing that up. It wasnt useful in this particular situation, but i really believe you need to pay attention to context, and try to be a bit nicer. If you cant do that, you probably shouldnt respond to any thread. Your demeaner came off very negative, as though you were mocking me and acting superior to me, as if i was stupid and had no clue what im doing. Based on your response, i'm quite confident i have more knowledge on this subject than you do, but i cannot conclude that because i dont know you or your mental condition or capacity at the time you wrote that message so i will not judge any deeper.

Thank you for your responses!