MAC Reservation

[Control-IT]

Was wondering what is best practice with a lot of devices on a network.  It seems a lot like using a MAC DHCP reservation for TV's, C4 equipment and some others.  Do you do it for everything?  I have Ubiquiti WAPS, Sonos units, Wattbox's, etc.. It would take awhile to do everything but is it necessary?  

[abovedeck]

Absolutely.  MAC DHCP via the router, not static IPs via device.  If you ever need to switch networks or replace the device, it's much easier this way.

[knowitall]

8 hours ago, abovedeck said:

Absolutely.  MAC DHCP via the router, not static IPs via device.  If you ever need to switch networks or replace the device, it's much easier this way.

Not really. I think it would be much easier to configure a new router to the desired IP scheme and use static on devices. 

 

On new new networks after setting all static I set DHCP 100-120 and plug in all devices that can't be set and reserve that way then change DHCP back to 2-99 or whatever you want 

[istreich]

8 hours ago, abovedeck said:

Absolutely.  MAC DHCP via the router, not static IPs via device.  If you ever need to switch networks or replace the device, it's much easier this way.

On the other hand, fixed ip is better/faster if you need to change your router. 

Althougg it is true that some devices don't allow fixed ip forcing you to use dhcp reservation or both. 

I guess both approaches make sense and depends on your future plans and devices. 

[lippavisual]

9 hours ago, abovedeck said:

Absolutely.  MAC DHCP via the router, not static IPs via device.  If you ever need to switch networks or replace the device, it's much easier this way.

Wrong.  The gents up above me explain why it is much faster to statically assign devices.

Also, if your router craps out, all static IP'd devices will keep chugging along talking to each other without the router.

That would not happen if you have all devices MAC reserved.  All the devices would be out in LaLa land.

Obviously, devices that don't offer static addressing get a reservation but anything that can take one, gets one.

[Control-IT]

Wrong.  The gents up above me explain why it is much faster to statically assign devices.

Also, if your router craps out, all static IP'd devices will keep chugging along talking to each other without the router.

That would not happen if you have all devices MAC reserved.  All the devices would be out in LaLa land.

Obviously, devices that don't offer static addressing get a reservation but anything that can take one, gets one.

I always used static addressing as well. Thought it was just cleaner to leave dhcp in another range. I've read the the MAC addressing was preferred. Thanks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joshua Pressnell]

For me, it depends on what devices we're talking about.  I use static allocations for fixed location devices.  My router, TVs, controllers, anything else that's installed IN the house gets static IPs mapped. 

I also keep a list of MAC-assigned DHCP addresses for laptops and mobile devices.  My static range usually runs .0.1 - .0.100.  My MAC assigned DHCP range goes .0.101-.0.150. Then I leave .0.151-.0.254 as pure DHCP.  

That way I don't have to keep farting around with network settings on my laptops and mobile phones as I travel around, but most internal stuff stays solid.

[Cyknight]

Frankly - there is no right or wrong in static vs reserved. It's more personal preference/what advatages do you prefer. There's something to be said for each.

 

As for is it wise to have things on (static or reservation) the same address all the time - then yes, anything you want to control over then network, if it doesn't require it to begin with, is usually 'helped' by having a static IP. Required no, helps prevent the occasional glitch or lag - yes.

[lippavisual]

15 minutes ago, Cyknight said:

Frankly - there is no right or wrong in static vs reserved. It's more personal preference/what advatages do you prefer. There's something to be said for each.

This is true.  No right or wrong.  But for us installers, IMO, it makes no sense to me why anyone would solely rely on MAC reservations.  Based on experiences, that is just asking for trouble.

[Crustyloafer]

Setting static addresses based on MAC address reservation relies on the router being up and running in order to maintain the static IP.

If you set static IPs on the device itself then as long as they are all connected to the same switch then the device will continue to operate and communicate with each over via the switch without there even being a router in place at all. I only use MAC address reservation for devices I wish to give a static IP but cannot do so within the device itself.

Overall setting static IPs on the device also makes it much easier if changing the router over as you only need to configure the new router with the same IP and DHCP range. If all devices are set to MAC address based reservations then when you change router all the devices will end up on unknown IP address and you then have to start all over again.

[BraydonH]

I never static ip anything. Always DHCP Reservations.

[abovedeck]

Try troubleshooting a controller or device that is set to a static address that cannot be obtained by the router.  That's my reasoning.  True, there is no right or wrong.  I should have clarified that in my experience, DHCP reservations have always proved easier.

 

 

[zaphod]

I use both - one advantage of using DHCP reservations is that this can be done in one convenient UI sitting in front of a PC.  Setting static IPs has to be done on the specific devices which means that you have to go poking around in different rooms using UIs that can be somewhat painful, like on game consoles, DVD players, etc.  And then if you want to change anything, like a DNS mask or DHCP address, then you have to go back and do it in the same UI.

[Crustyloafer]

18 hours ago, zaphod said:

I use both - one advantage of using DHCP reservations is that this can be done in one convenient UI sitting in front of a PC.  Setting static IPs has to be done on the specific devices which means that you have to go poking around in different rooms using UIs that can be somewhat painful, like on game consoles, DVD players, etc.  And then if you want to change anything, like a DNS mask or DHCP address, then you have to go back and do it in the same UI.

I can't deny its far easier and less time consuming to do it all via MAC address reservation in the router's GUI but overall static IPs on critical devices is going to be the more stable long term configuration.

A good example is C4 panellised lighting, if the Director, Bus Ethernet Gateway, and all Dimming/Relay/0-10V packs are all on static IPs set within the devices themselves and all connected to the same network switch then even in the even of a completely failure of the rest of the network and the router as long as the switch is switch on then the system will continue to provide full lighting control functionality. Very useful in the event of a power cut and then when power is reinstated and the router dies dies due to a surge or spike on power on.