A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How does setting a static IP on a mobile device prevent linux router from assigning that IP address?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #286  
Old April 19th 17, 12:42 AM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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  
Old April 19th 17, 01:29 AM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
tlvp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default 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  
Old April 19th 17, 10:11 AM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Dan Purgert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default 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  
Old April 19th 17, 10:52 AM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Dan Purgert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default 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  
Old April 19th 17, 03:13 PM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default 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  
Old April 19th 17, 04:22 PM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Dan Purgert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default 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  
Old April 19th 17, 05:27 PM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Tomos Davies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default 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  
Old April 19th 17, 05:27 PM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Tomos Davies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default 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  
Old April 19th 17, 06:31 PM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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  
Old April 20th 17, 02:44 AM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Tomos Davies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default 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  
Old April 23rd 17, 06:52 PM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default 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  
Old April 23rd 17, 10:14 PM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Whiskers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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  
Old June 9th 19, 08:03 AM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Johann Beretta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old June 9th 19, 08:26 AM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Johann Beretta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old June 9th 19, 09:38 AM posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Melzzzzz[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default 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
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.