If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linux router from assigning that IP address?
In article , Tomos Davies
wrote: For example, even you know that a MP4 video in the default iOS video app's document space is not available to any FTP server on iOS WITHOUT jailbreaking. false. just because *you* can't figure it out doesn't mean it's not possible. |
Ads |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linux router from assigning that IP address?
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:57:30 -0000 (UTC), Tomos Davies wrote:
... but "almost everyone" does. .... FSVO "almost" :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linuxrouter from assigning that IP address?
Char Jackson wrote:
*Is it the case that "n" will fall back to "g" if those AP's detect the use of "g" in the vicinity? I probably used to know, but I forgot. Nope, 'n' and 'g' can coexist peacefully. It's 'b' that causes the trouble. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281 |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linuxrouter from assigning that IP address?
Tomos Davies wrote:
In , Dan Purgert suggested: Therefore, unless the unit predates 2005, it is illegal in the United States. All these devices have FCC ID numbers! So something is wrong between what you're saying and what I'm seeing! Again, if the design of the device pre-dates the cutoff it gets grandfathered in. 'Tik really *SHOULD* change things, but they don't necessarily have to. Though, 2005 was when the FCC started papers on the ruling, it could very well be that it was later on that the ruling was put into effect. That being said, right now, today, the ruling is in effect; and should be considered when buying new equipment. That FCC ID tells all of us it's USA legal - does it not? https://img.routerboard.com/mimg/659_l.jpg Right under that FCC ID, it says "tested to comply with FCC standards for home or office use". Companies can put whatever they want on the labels (unfortunately). Comparing the "features offered" and "the FCC rules", the device obviously does not conform to FCC standards. Sure, it hits all the frequency points that it needs to - but that little gotcha in the ruling that I quoted before . [...] I suspect: a. It can do any country it wants to do, b. But it would be illegal for you do set it up incorrectly. That's not the wording of the FCC ruling. The wording is explicitly that a "master device" must not allow an end-user / installer to select non-US frequencies by any means. All manufacturers that I am aware of (SOHO brands, UBNT, Cisco / Meraki, Ruckus) have taken the "split the branding" approach ("US" gets one model, everyone else gets another). [...] BTW, if the USA is the highest power anyway, then it's a moot point on power, wouldn't you say? (Except for the frequencies.) It's frequencies that the FCC is more concerned about. Not that they're not concerned with Tx power ... but the ruling is worded around channel use / frequency. I suspect that the card is made and sold legally in the USA even today, in 2016 and that the only thing illegal is to use it illegally. When there are provisions to lock the user out of ever selecting "not USA", then yes, it is totally legal to sell. For example, shorting pin 3 to 15 (making that up) means "this device is US-Only". That would mean either: a. Use too high a power (I suspect the USA has the highest power anyway) b. Or to use a different frequency (where I know other countries allow it) c. Or to use it illegally to hit someone over the head with it. Other than that, I think it's legal from all indications on the net. I base that "assumption" on two things that seem to be true: 1. It seems to be sold today with the same FCC ID 2. Where that FCC ID seems to indicate it's legal in the USA Your assumptions do not change the fact that in order to comply fully with FCC regulations, the radio must not allow you to select "not USA frequencies", at all, ever. It could very well be that their interface is simply ****, and they show all the countries, but when you try selecting "not USA" (or Canada, etc.), it throws an error. That being said, I fully do admit that I could be off with regards to the cutoff date(s). [...] A. You say it's illegal if it was sold after 2005. B. I say it seems to be sold today (a dozen years later!) C. I say it has the same FCC ID then, as now. 2005 was the year I found some (additional?) ruling / clarification. The FCC's site is a bit of a nightmare to navigate -- so perhaps the 2005 document was nothing more than an RFC, and the actual change came later. As it stands, checking today will show the information I quoted. All I know for sure though, is the following: 1. My Mikrotik R52n-M miniPCI wifi board has an FCC ID of TV7R52N 2. On the net, I find lots of pictures - all with the same FCC ID. 3. On the net, the card is sold in the USA - all with the same FCCID. Yeah, because the FCC only cares about if things change to the radio. Their grandfather-in rules are ... complex ... to say the least. However, given that nothing has changed radio-wise on the device, it's still "allowed" (for now anyway, until they change the rules again). Personally, I'd give it a pass - why tie up money on a device that's skirting[1] the rules? [1] At least according to your description. It could very well be that they've got some provision to keep you locked to "US" that they don't reflect in the UI. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281 |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linux router from assigning that IP address?
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:11:54 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert
wrote: Char Jackson wrote: *Is it the case that "n" will fall back to "g" if those AP's detect the use of "g" in the vicinity? I probably used to know, but I forgot. Nope, 'n' and 'g' can coexist peacefully. It's 'b' that causes the trouble. Thanks, Dan. I was sure about b & g, but much less sure about g and n. I appreciate the clarification. |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linuxrouter from assigning that IP address?
Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:11:54 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote: Char Jackson wrote: *Is it the case that "n" will fall back to "g" if those AP's detect the use of "g" in the vicinity? I probably used to know, but I forgot. Nope, 'n' and 'g' can coexist peacefully. It's 'b' that causes the trouble. Thanks, Dan. I was sure about b & g, but much less sure about g and n. I appreciate the clarification. No problem. You will have some degree of "extra" slowdown in a mixed-mode environment, but as long as you're not overly saturating the AP, it should be manageable. What I mean is, in mixed mode, the "slower" devices act more like "1.5"[1] devices rather than 1 ... so e.g. 100m throughput with 10 'n' devices is ~10 mbit /device; whereas 100m throughput with 6'n' and 4'g' is more like 8.3 mbit / device. [1] - note "1.5" is somewhat of an average, due to all the variables involved with wifi (distance, signal, noise, antenna design/quality, tranceiver design/quality, etc.). In particularly good conditions, it may be as low as 1.1 -1.2. In particularly bad conditions ... I've seen it spike as high as 2 (but again, contrived "bad" conditions). -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281 |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linux router from assigning that IP address?
In , nospam suggested:
just because *you* can't figure it out doesn't mean it's not possible. I agree with you that just because you, me, and everyone else on the entire iOS newsgroup and on the entire Intenet can't figure it out ... doesn't mean that it's not possible. In fact, as I said, it's not the hardware that makes it impossible. It's Apple who makes it impossible. |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linux router from assigning that IP address?
In , Dan Purgert suggested:
Again, if the design of the device pre-dates the cutoff it gets grandfathered in. 'Tik really *SHOULD* change things, but they don't necessarily have to. I completely understand what you're saying, so I started looking this up, where I think I may have figured out why my device is "legal" in the USA. I think these are some of the "new FCC rules" you speak of: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/at...-575A1_Rcd.pdf I think the technicality that makes my device "legal" in the USA is not the "date" but the actual wording and intent of the new FCC regulations. UNDERSTANDING THE FCC REGULATIONS FOR LOW-POWER, NON-LICENSED TRANSMITTERS (1993) https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/E...3/oet63rev.pdf UNDERSTANDING THE FCC REGULATIONS FOR COMPUTERS AND OTHER DIGITAL DEVICES (1993) https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/E...2/oet62rev.pdf Specifically, the only part of the device that is a radio frequency emitter which was also manufactured, marketed, imported, and sold, is the mini PCI card, which clearly has FCC certification. Either way, I think the "entire system" is built, ad hoc, by the WISP, since the motherboard and miniPCI card come from Latvia (I presume) and the antenna is bought off the shelf here in the USA. Though, 2005 was when the FCC started papers on the ruling, it could very well be that it was later on that the ruling was put into effect. That is interesting. Googling, I find the question has been asked, but it's the net, so, the answer isn't always definitive. Mikrotik FCC Certification (2015): https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=103211 I think, as I said above, we have to figure out what needs certification, since my "system" was likely built by a WISP from "components", only one of which requires (and has) FCC certification - which is the R52n-m mini PCI card. The actual Router OS is likely running on the RB411 motherboard, which is not a RF emitter. That being said, right now, today, the ruling is in effect; and should be considered when buying new equipment. In a practical sense, I suspect the legal EIRP is as high in the USA as anywhere else, where there are enough frequencies (especially at 5GHz) that we don't need the additional frequencies that other countries allow. So the legality question is only of theoretical interest, to me but I think the issue is what the FCC considers the "complete device". Companies can put whatever they want on the labels (unfortunately). Comparing the "features offered" and "the FCC rules", the device obviously does not conform to FCC standards. This says that only the radio cards and complete systems need to be FCC certified. Mikrotik FCC Identification TV7R52 miniPCI card (2007) http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r180...Identification The R52n-m miniPCI radio card I have is clearly FCC certified, where the complete system was probably put together by the original WISP. Sure, it hits all the frequency points that it needs to - but that little gotcha in the ruling that I quoted before . The link above says that the user of a non-compliant device he didn't build himself will simply be told not to use it (if it breaks the rules), whereas the manufacturer is the one who gets fined. Apparently, the FCC "mostly" regulates the *selling* and *marketing* and *importing* of the devices - not the actual *use* of the device (clarifying details are in the thread). So, I suspect what you assume is not what is happening - but I am not a lawyer - so all I can say is that these devices are so ubiquitous in the USA that they must be legal since they're in plain sight everywhere. I suspect the legality arises in the fact that the actual PCI card itself is what is FCC certified, and not the entire device (which, at least in my case, was almost certainly "assembled" by someone other than the manufacturer). That's not the wording of the FCC ruling. The wording is explicitly that a "master device" must not allow an end-user / installer to select non-US frequencies by any means. Neither one of us is a lawyer, but both of us must admit that these devices are openly used in the USA, and, clearly, my Router OS allows me to set any country. Those are facts we can't dance around. Just as it's not illegal to spoof phone numbers, but it's illegal to spoof a phone number when dialing 911, I suspect there is a technicality involved here. I suspect that technicality revolves around the fact that these are systems that are "assembled" in the United States out of parts that are imported from Latvia. I suspect that the "assembly" does not have FCC approval (and I suspect, since they're openly used ubiquitously in the USA) that the assembly does not need to be FCC approved (as long as it is assembled and used correctly). So just like how Tor can be used correctly and Tor can be used incorrectly, it's not the device which is illegal - it's the incorrect *use* of the device which can be considered illegal (by FCC standards). All manufacturers that I am aware of (SOHO brands, UBNT, Cisco / Meraki, Ruckus) have taken the "split the branding" approach ("US" gets one model, everyone else gets another). I think the key here is who "manufactured/marketed/imported/sold" my device and is that "manufacturer" beholden to the FCC? The device was "assembled" from 4 parts by the WISP (most likely): 1. The RB411 motherboard (which runs the RouterOS which allows any country) 2. The R52n-M miniPCI card (which is the RF emitter which has FCC approval) 3. The 24Volt 1Amp POE (which requires no FCC approval) 4. The antenna (which requires no FCC approval) 5. Assorted mounting hardware & cabling (which requires no FCC approval) The only part of my device that was "manufactured", "marketed", "imported" and "sold" in the USA that requires FCC approval is, I think, the mini PCI card (which has FCC approval). The rest of the parts did not require FCC approval. And, most importantly, I think, the part that allows me to set the country is the motherboard, which runs RouterOS. So the key question is why doesn't the RB411 motherboard, which runs the RouterOS operating system which allows me to set the country code, NOT need an FCC ID? I don't know the answer but maybe it's because the motherboard, in and of itself, does not emit RF frequencies. It's frequencies that the FCC is more concerned about. Not that they're not concerned with Tx power ... but the ruling is worded around channel use / frequency. This seems to be a graphic of the latest frequency changes by the FCC: http://stevedischer.com/wp-content/u...5-1024x553.png Based on the aforementioned threads, I would agree that the FCC is focused more on "interference" than on anything else. https://www.fcc.gov/general/equipmen...ion-procedures I think the technicality here is that nobody actually sells, imports, markets, and manufacturers a complete device in this case! In my case, for example, the complete device was not manufactured, sold, imported, nor marketed - hence - I guess - it did not need FCC certification as a "complete device". When there are provisions to lock the user out of ever selecting "not USA", then yes, it is totally legal to sell. For example, shorting pin 3 to 15 (making that up) means "this device is US-Only". While neither of us is a lawyer, I suspect the technicality here is that you're assuming a different "complete device" than does the FCC. In my case, the *complete device* was "assembled" and "used" by a USA WISP, but not manufactured, marketed, imported, nor sold by the manufacturer. Only the miniPCI card was manufactured, marketed, sold, and imported into the USA - and that card clearly has the required FCC certification. Your assumptions do not change the fact that in order to comply fully with FCC regulations, the radio must not allow you to select "not USA frequencies", at all, ever. I think we both are saying the same thing, which is that neither of us denies that the FCC regulates the manufacture, marketing, selling, and importation of a "complete device" that emits RF energy. The only place I think we may differ is in what you are considering a "device" versus what the FCC considers a "device". For example, I suspect that the FCC does regulate this $150 Mikrotik router (24 to 26 decibels before adding the antenna so the EIRP is about 28dB). https://www.roc-noc.com/product.php?productid=60 It seems, from the user manual, that it uses the *same* RouterOS that my RB411 motherboard does, for example: http://www.roc-noc.com/pdf/RBCRD/crugA.pdf I think the difference is that this is the motherboard and rf board in one package (instead of two separately sold pieces, as mine may have been): http://www.roc-noc.com/pdf/RBCRD/cro...s_brochure.pdf It could very well be that their interface is simply ****, and they show all the countries, but when you try selecting "not USA" (or Canada, etc.), it throws an error. While that can be the case, it seems that Mikrotik is well respected as a supplier of professional equipment around the world (they're based on Latvia themselves), so, I suspect it actually works. That being said, I fully do admit that I could be off with regards to the cutoff date(s). I don't think the date is the technicality that makes my device legal. I think we both accidentally hit upon something that hadn't occurred to us prior, which is that the technicality that allows my radio to be legal is that the only component that the FCC regulates is the card itself, which has FCC approval. Look at this "public notice" from the FCC (admittedly, dated 2000): http://www.roc-noc.com/pdf/RBCRD/cro...s_brochure.pdf "In order to be considered a transmitter module, the device must be a complete RF transmitter, i.e., it must have its own reference oscillator (e.g., VCO), antenna, etc. The only connectors to the module, if any, may be power supply and modulation/data inputs." 2005 was the year I found some (additional?) ruling / clarification. The FCC's site is a bit of a nightmare to navigate -- so perhaps the 2005 document was nothing more than an RFC, and the actual change came later. As it stands, checking today will show the information I quoted. I think the technicality that makes my equipment legal is that the "assemblage" didn't need to be certified. Only the complete device that is sold as a unit needed certification, such as, perhaps, this device: https://www.streakwave.com/mmSWAVE1/Video/HW3.pdf People are trying to certify certain assemblages though, but I don't know their progress: https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=25360 The cost for certification is said to be (in those articles) under $10K USD. https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=21296 From that article, the antenna, surprisingly, is not part of the certification, BTW ("as long as the antenna itself does not violate the FCC power density limits of 1 watt per MHz of channel width for the band"). Yeah, because the FCC only cares about if things change to the radio. Their grandfather-in rules are ... complex ... to say the least. Here are some of the "grandfathering" rules: http://stevedischer.com/fcc-part-15-...fect-mikrotik/ However, given that nothing has changed radio-wise on the device, it's still "allowed" (for now anyway, until they change the rules again). I looked for the certification of the R52n-m but found this instead: https://fccid.io/document.php?id=1696005 The point is that I think the board is the only thing that needs to be FCC certified, since it's the only thing marketed, manufactured, sold, or imported into the US. http://www.cloudrouterswitches.com/R52nM.asp The rest is just "assembled" and "used" in the US. Personally, I'd give it a pass - why tie up money on a device that's skirting[1] the rules? I think it's perfectly legal, but that the "thing" that is legal is the actual miniPCI board which is marketed, manufactured, imported, or sold in the US. https://www.roc-noc.com/mikrotik/min...dio/R52nM.html [1] At least according to your description. It could very well be that they've got some provision to keep you locked to "US" that they don't reflect in the UI. I'm pretty sure the main issue is that the only thing the FCC wants certified in my setup is the mini PCI card itself, which clearly has FCC certification. https://i.mt.lv/routerboard/files/R5...0805123734.pdf I think the rules you speak of apply to "fully assembled radios" which are marketed, manufactured, sold, or imported into the USA. Mine is a frankenstein, of sorts. Somehow, since these things are openly used all over the USA (I don't know the technicality well enough yet), that simple single fact makes it legal. I think........ |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linux router from assigning that IP address?
In article , Tomos Davies
wrote: just because *you* can't figure it out doesn't mean it's not possible. I agree with you that just because you, me, and everyone else on the entire iOS newsgroup and on the entire Intenet can't figure it out ... doesn't mean that it's not possible. everyone *but* you knew how and tried to explain it to you. In fact, as I said, it's not the hardware that makes it impossible. It's Apple who makes it impossible. apple doesn't make it impossible. what makes it impossible is your hatred and refusal to learn. |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linux router from assigning that IP address?
In , nospam suggested:
apple doesn't make it impossible. Your opinion is duly noted. |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linux router from assigning that IP address?
[Late response. Responding only, because AFAIK, "Tomos Davies" hasn't.]
Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Tomos Davies wrote: [...] As stated, the problem is just to make it so that Windows or Linux can "mount" the entire mobile device, whether it's Android or iOS, and without adding anything on the computer (because that's what gives the solution its universality). Umm... I visit your house, wave my smartphone in the air, it connects and mounts automagically. Now your Windoze or Linux server can suck everything out of my phone? I don't think I like that. Perhaps you might want to rethink how you are going to use this thing. Your smartphone will only connect if you *let* it connect to his SSID and *give* the correct password/key. Even if it passes this, *your* phone has to start a FTP server (or have it running) and he has to figure out the IP address which his DHCP server has assigned to your phone. That's of course doable, but not trivial. If you let all that happen, you'll get what's coming to you! :-) |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linuxrouter from assigning that IP address?
On 2017-04-23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[Late response. Responding only, because AFAIK, "Tomos Davies" hasn't.] Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Tomos Davies wrote: [...] As stated, the problem is just to make it so that Windows or Linux can "mount" the entire mobile device, whether it's Android or iOS, and without adding anything on the computer (because that's what gives the solution its universality). Umm... I visit your house, wave my smartphone in the air, it connects and mounts automagically. Now your Windoze or Linux server can suck everything out of my phone? I don't think I like that. Perhaps you might want to rethink how you are going to use this thing. Your smartphone will only connect if you *let* it connect to his SSID and *give* the correct password/key. Even if it passes this, *your* phone has to start a FTP server (or have it running) and he has to figure out the IP address which his DHCP server has assigned to your phone. That's of course doable, but not trivial. If you let all that happen, you'll get what's coming to you! :-) I suppose there are people who set their mobile phones to automatically connect to any unsecured WiFi that comes within range - and use the DNS server supplied by it too. After all, it must be alright to do that or such settings wouldn't be possible ... -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linuxrouter from assigning that IP address?
On 4/11/17 3:22 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
snip For the same reason that when a cable modem releases its leased IP, waits a short while, and then renews its lease with the DHCP, it gets the exact same dyanmic IP back again.* Normally. snip Not entirely accurate. Generally any device on a network, if it follows the RFCs, will request a renewal of a lease at the 1/2 way point of the lease. i.e. if the lease is valid for 10 hours, then the device will attempt to renew the lease after 5 hours. If the renewal is denied, the current lease is still valid for the remaining 5 hours at which point the device will generally request the new address at some point before the current lease has actually expired. If a device (cable modem included) released an IP address before getting a new one, there would be a break in traffic. |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linuxrouter from assigning that IP address?
On 4/11/17 3:10 PM, Tomos Davies wrote:
How does setting a static IP on a linux Android mobile device prevent the linux router from assigning that IP address to another device? snip It doesn't and if you set a static IP on your device, without telling the router, you risk an IP address conflict and can end up with colliding packets, or packets addressed for one device that are sporadically routed to two different devices. IP address conflicts are miserable to work with. Routers of any sophistication will allow you to set your DHCP range. Using this method you could set, for example, 10.0.0.100 to 10.0.0.200 for the DHCP pool, and have 10.0.0.2 (assuming 10.0.0.1 is for the router itself) through 10.0.0.99 available for static assignments. However, you'll have to remember what addresses you have assigned. If you forget and assign the same address to two different devices, you'll have severe problems. Another method (and much more "safe") is to simply mark certain IPs in your pool to only be assigned to particular MAC addresses. This is known as address reservation. Your Android device will simply be given the same address, by the router, every single time it connects to the network. For all intents and purposes, you'll have a static address, but you will have no risk of address collisions. /ip dhcp-server lease add address=10.10.10.237 always-broadcast=yes client-id=1:18:a6:f7:e7:41:ef \ comment=Harper lease-time=1d mac-address=18:A6:F7:E7:41:EF server=\ dhcp-server add address=10.10.10.227 always-broadcast=yes client-id=1:c0:3f:e:c5:27:65 \ comment="Hradecky" lease-time=1d mac-address=C0:3F:0E:C5:27:65 \ server=dhcp-server That particular block of text is how you'd reserve addresses on a MikroTik router (as an example only) for two separate devices One of the great joys of RouterOS (Mikrotik's Router Operating System), for me, is the ability to COMMENT everything... In that particular example, Harper is given a "static address" of 10.10.10.237. In reality, it's a dynamic lease, but it is ONLY and ALWAYS assigned to his router. The lease time is set to 1d (day) but can be just about any value you want. I have, however, seen problems with leases that exceed 14 days as some devices simply aren't able to deal with lease times that long. I'm fairly certain the lease time is sent in some value of seconds and once you get to two weeks you're handing out leases of 1,209,600 seconds and some devices may not be able to work with that large of a number. |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linuxrouter from assigning that IP address?
On 2019-06-09, Johann Beretta wrote:
On 4/11/17 3:22 PM, Mike Easter wrote: snip For the same reason that when a cable modem releases its leased IP, waits a short while, and then renews its lease with the DHCP, it gets the exact same dyanmic IP back again.* Normally. snip Not entirely accurate. Generally any device on a network, if it follows the RFCs, will request a renewal of a lease at the 1/2 way point of the lease. i.e. if the lease is valid for 10 hours, then the device will attempt to renew the lease after 5 hours. If the renewal is denied, the current lease is still valid for the remaining 5 hours at which point the device will generally request the new address at some point before the current lease has actually expired. If a device (cable modem included) released an IP address before getting a new one, there would be a break in traffic. I noticed that on cable they associate IP address with MAC and then if you change MAC you get different address. Return MAC, and you get previous address :P -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|