I have created static objects for most of the hosts on my network. The only remaining ones are random wireless devices including phones. I noticed that there were duplicated entries showing up so I made one of them static. I'm still getting duplicates. When this occurs, there are two entries that are identical, except one has a hostname and the other has an unknown hostname. I tried removing them from dhcpd.leases, but they reappear. It seems that deleting them from the file doesn't delete them from utm. There should be a way to remove one or all dhcp entries and force new leases to be recreated.
the online-help mentiones that static dhcp leases should not overlap with the dhcp range of a dhcp server - do yours?
Regards
Manfred
Thanks for your reply. They do overlap. I did that because on my wifi router (before I set it in AP mode), you cannot allocate a static ip outside of the enabled dhcp range, which seems to be the opposite of UTM. I guess I assumed that if an address is static, dhcpd would not re-use it, but maybe that's not a valid assumption. In this case, there is not a collision, because the duplicated entries are for the same device. Last night, I deleted all of the leases from dhcpd.leases and then rebooted UTM. The duplicate leases haven't re-appeared, at least not yet. I'll leave it like this for a while to see if they come back again before I change anything else.
you cannot allocate a static ip outside of the enabled dhcp range, which seems to be the opposite of UTM
all overlap comments are useless I think
and leaving the host like shown in the picture the UTM will not give Ip to that host
Maybe is not a bug But dev team have to rewrite the help file
I Solved this creating two DHCP, One with static mapping only checked range 192.168.2.10-192.168.10.20. And the other regular DHCP with range 192.168.2.22-192.168.10.255
Hi... it will re-use them, so static DHCP entries must be outside the assigned block.
Barry
Okay, that being said, the duplicated entries were for the same mac address, so it's not like there was a collision. In fact, *everything* about the entries were identical, except one had a host name and one didn't. In any case, the problem seems to have gone away on its own. I think utm must have been "remembering" the entries despite them being deleted from dhcpd.leases, but after rebooting utm a couple of times, the duplicates seem to have disappeared.
I will grant that this isn't a serious bug, but it's flakey. If utm had a proper mechanism for deleting a lease, maybe there would not have been duplicates.
I think utm must have been "remembering" the entries despite them being deleted from dhcpd.leases, but after rebooting utm a couple of times, the duplicates seem to have disappeared.
I will grant that this isn't a serious bug, but it's flakey. If utm had a proper mechanism for deleting a lease, maybe there would not have been duplicates.
Maybe I've misunderstood this thread, but here's no "rule" that says a MAC address can't have more than one associated IP. A DHCP server shouldn't delete a lease just because it assigns a new IP to a MAC address - how would it know there weren't multiple processes on that PC? I think the issue is with the client.
Cheers - Bob
Sophos UTM Community Moderator Sophos Certified Architect - UTM Sophos Certified Engineer - XG Gold Solution Partner since 2005
