Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.hardware > #20492 > unrolled thread

Is a Static network connection more static than Auto?

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.hardware

Contents

  Is a Static network connection more static than Auto?  micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2023-01-02 00:21 -0500
    Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-01-02 08:15 +0100
      Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-01-02 12:54 +0100
    Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2023-01-02 08:21 +0100
      Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-01-02 12:55 +0100
        Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2023-01-02 10:10 -0500
          Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2023-01-02 16:28 +0100
            Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2023-01-02 10:59 -0500
              Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2023-01-02 17:36 +0100
                Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2023-01-02 12:16 -0500
                  Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2023-01-02 19:12 +0100
    Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto?  Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2023-01-02 02:18 -0600
      Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2023-01-02 07:08 -0700
        Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2023-01-02 12:09 -0600
    Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2023-01-02 11:23 +0000
      Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2023-01-02 13:01 +0000
        Re: Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-01-02 14:33 +0100

#20492 — Is a Static network connection more static than Auto?

Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? 

If I set a printer's network IP address, network mask, and Gateway and
mark it STATIC, does that make it less likely that the printer will
forget what the settings are?   Less likely than if it was done with
AUTO/APIPA or DHCP? 


(The previous thread was called "I can't print to my wireless printer",
and it starts at 11/1/2022 at 6:16am ET, but after all these years, I
still don't know if people are likely to see a new post in an old
thread.  I am not likely to see it, but my version of Forte Agent is
from 2002.  Since I save all the posts, a new post in an old thread will
be many, many pages up from the page I'm looking at this week.)


Anyhow it was subtitled  "No wifi connection. " and was about my
wireless printer becoming disconected, but you guys, especially Graham
and Char, showed me how to fix it. 

It happened again, and was harder to fix the second time. But I didn't
have to post again.  I did have to use the full length instructions that
Graham gave. (The first time, abbreviating his instructions was enough.)

And it's happened a third time, but this time good fortune shone on me.

Brother has a program BRAdminLight.  I wonder if it would work for other
printers or wireless networks in general.  Probably not.  See below**  

Anyhow, I tried BRAdminLight the second time, but the printer was
totally off the network and didn't show up.   This time it was listed
with some strange node name, and labeled Unconfigured.  Right clicking
and clicking on Configure gave 5 methods for configuring, AUTO, STATIC,
DHCP, and a couple others. 

Choosing Auto did not work, and if it had it probably woudl have
assigned the wrong numbers like the first time APIPA was used and I had
a problem. 

But STATIC only required IP number, subnet mask, and gateway, and I
copied all 3 off the printout Graham had me make after following his
instructions. 

And it worked, but more important, Now that it's set at Static, doesn't
that make it less likely it will lose track of what the settings should
be?   I sort of thought that Auto, as good as it is, maybe re-autos
under certain circumstances.  Or am I projecting from some webpages that
reload for no good reason? 

*** I would think BRAdminLight would work with all printers and all
networks unless Brother went out of their way to require a Brother
printer. Yeah, I just remembered that I have another wireless printer
that didn't show up.  I forgot it because I've only used once.  I found
it on the sidewalk; it won't print and I couldn't fix it, but it scans
really nicely, has nice scan software to go with it. And I used it when
the Brother was off the network.  It's an HP-Officejet-4630, and it does
not get listed by BRAdminLight.  There is also BRAdmin-Pro but it seems
to have more than I would need and I haven't installed it. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#20493

Am 02.01.2023 um 00:21:51 Uhr schrieb micky:

> If I set a printer's network IP address, network mask, and Gateway and
> mark it STATIC, does that make it less likely that the printer will
> forget what the settings are?   Less likely than if it was done with
> AUTO/APIPA or DHCP? 

You need to distinguish between IPv4 and IPv6.
IPv4 offers you static addressing. That means the address will be the
same - every time the interface comes up. DHCP means that there must be
a DHCPv4 server that give you an address. If no one is reachable, it
can use APIPA to create an address from 169.254.0.0/16, but your
computer also needs to know that this net is on the ethernet link.
I don't recommend APIPA.

For IPv6, the autoconfig exists and it will create a link-local address
from fe80::/64 automatically when the NIC comes up - no DHCP nor router
required. The autoconfig of the GUA is also normal - parallel to the
link-local address. Don't set IPv6 static until you have a fixed prefix
from your ISP.


PS: See Follow-UP to comp.periphs.printers!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20497

On 2023-01-02 08:15, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 02.01.2023 um 00:21:51 Uhr schrieb micky:

...

> PS: See Follow-UP to comp.periphs.printers!

Please don't.

Only the post initiator should be able to do this, and it is always a 
risk, there can be people that are not subscribed to that selected forum 
and who will not subscribe.

For example, myself.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20494

"micky" <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote in message 
news:rqo4rh16l1qraa778lnt2a13qqcc7l6bnj@4ax.com...
> Is a Static network connection more static than Auto?
>
> If I set a printer's network IP address, network mask, and Gateway
> and mark it STATIC, does that make it less likely that the printer
> will forget what the settings are?   Less likely than if it was done
> with AUTO/APIPA or DHCP?

I think you're not asking the right question.  Its not about that printer 
forgetting its settings, but if its DHCP request (for an IP) is answered. 
If not, than either it can't be part of the network, or APIPA kicks in and 
loads a earlier provided "fall back" IP.

But yes, setting a static IP should result in the printer not "forgetting" 
its IP settings.

> ... my version of Forte Agent is from 2002.  Since I save all
> the posts, a new post in an old thread will be many, many pages
> up from the page I'm looking at this week.)

I'm still using Outlook Express 6.  The above problem is why I have not set 
it to display grouped by subject, but instead just show all messages in 
chronological order.  All I than have to do is to start at the message at 
the top of the list and work my way down to the last read one.

The only reason I sometimes switch to grouped by subject is to see where the 
parentof a certain message is.   Alas, OE6 is not smart enough to remember 
which message was selected when I switch over (and unfold the subtree and 
hilite the same message in subject view), so its cumbersome. :-\

> *** I would think BRAdminLight would work with all printers and
> all networks unless Brother went out of their way to require a
> Brother printer.

If you talk to a person wearing headphones and he doesn't appear to listen 
to you, would you than come to the conclusion that *you* "went out of their" 
to be incompatible with them ?  The same applies here.

It works because that Brother printer has got some extra software which 
likely listens for some specific LAN broadcasts coming from that 
BRAdminLight software.

IOW, its not that that BRAdminLight can't be used for other printers too, 
but that those other printers simply do not listen to/for what BRAdminLight 
tries to tell them.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20498

On 2023-01-02 08:21, R.Wieser wrote:
> "micky" <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote in message
> news:rqo4rh16l1qraa778lnt2a13qqcc7l6bnj@4ax.com...
>> Is a Static network connection more static than Auto?
>>
>> If I set a printer's network IP address, network mask, and Gateway
>> and mark it STATIC, does that make it less likely that the printer
>> will forget what the settings are?   Less likely than if it was done
>> with AUTO/APIPA or DHCP?
> 
> I think you're not asking the right question.  Its not about that printer
> forgetting its settings, but if its DHCP request (for an IP) is answered.
> If not, than either it can't be part of the network, or APIPA kicks in and
> loads a earlier provided "fall back" IP.
> 
> But yes, setting a static IP should result in the printer not "forgetting"
> its IP settings.


Yes.

micky, please do set an static network at the physical printer.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20502

On 1/2/2023 6:55 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-01-02 08:21, R.Wieser wrote:
>> "micky" <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:rqo4rh16l1qraa778lnt2a13qqcc7l6bnj@4ax.com...
>>> Is a Static network connection more static than Auto?
>>>
>>> If I set a printer's network IP address, network mask, and Gateway
>>> and mark it STATIC, does that make it less likely that the printer
>>> will forget what the settings are?   Less likely than if it was done
>>> with AUTO/APIPA or DHCP?
>>
>> I think you're not asking the right question.  Its not about that printer
>> forgetting its settings, but if its DHCP request (for an IP) is answered.
>> If not, than either it can't be part of the network, or APIPA kicks in and
>> loads a earlier provided "fall back" IP.
>>
>> But yes, setting a static IP should result in the printer not "forgetting"
>> its IP settings.
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> micky, please do set an static network at the physical printer.
> 

That used to be the more or less defacto advice long ago.

1) Set a DHCP range on the router, like 2..100 on the subnet.
2) Set the printer to a static value like 200, out of the way of the DHCP range.

And then they won't conflict in usage.

The netmask should be defined, such that all participants can see at
least 2..200 in the example.

You should not set the DHCP range, to exactly the number of computers,
because frequently you will forget some networking detail and mess it up.
Defining a larger range than is really needed, is a bit safer for
your peace of mind. For example, if I use virtual machines, those may
need a DHCP, as well as the main machine needing one.

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20503

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in message 
news:tous5u$1qheb$1@dont-email.me...
> On 1/2/2023 6:55 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
...
>> micky, please do set an static network at the physical printer.
>
> That used to be the more or less defacto advice long ago.

Could you explain why it was the defacto advice for a printer, but (I 
assume) not for computers ?  What made up the difference ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20504

On 1/2/2023 10:28 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:tous5u$1qheb$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 1/2/2023 6:55 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> ...
>>> micky, please do set an static network at the physical printer.
>>
>> That used to be the more or less defacto advice long ago.
> 
> Could you explain why it was the defacto advice for a printer, but (I
> assume) not for computers ?  What made up the difference ?
> 
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
> 

Probably because network discovery didn't work properly.

If it had a fixed address, you had more options for
fiddling the HOSTS file and so on. Or sticking an IP
address in a dialog.

Dynamic addresses work fine, if the client computers
have a protocol to locate where the services are hiding.
There have been multiple attempts to do that.

When we worked on our OS at work, our service discovery
worked, and there was never a problem finding the printer.
My memory is so shot now, I can't remember how you sent
a print job on that. (No, it wasn't lpr.) We used to print
around 2000 sheets a day on our printer (four packs of paper).
We were print-crazed individuals back then. And that's
because of the state of graphics at the time.

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20505

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in message 
news:touv1m$1qsss$1@dont-email.me...
> On 1/2/2023 10:28 AM, R.Wieser wrote:

>> Could you explain why it was the defacto advice for a printer, but (I
>> assume) not for computers ?  What made up the difference ?
>
> Probably because network discovery didn't work properly.

That was the only thing I could think of myself and why I asked for the 
difference between the two.  IOW : Why the "for a printer" destinction and 
not "for any networked device" ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20506

On 1/2/2023 11:36 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:touv1m$1qsss$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 1/2/2023 10:28 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> 
>>> Could you explain why it was the defacto advice for a printer, but (I
>>> assume) not for computers ?  What made up the difference ?
>>
>> Probably because network discovery didn't work properly.
> 
> That was the only thing I could think of myself and why I asked for the
> difference between the two.  IOW : Why the "for a printer" destinction and
> not "for any networked device" ?
> 
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

I think the device types, have varied in their ability to work properly.

You would think that network discovery would be seamless, and the
devices would all behave the same and have the same reliability.
That's not my impression.

There have been so many failures of stuff to work over the years,
I'm not really in a position to offer odds on which thing was
"most broken". Stuff is still broken today (Win11 file sharing
being an example), and they never fix anything, just change the
broken symptom set. If you can't get networking to work
properly today, connect the cable from the Windows 11 machine last.
The network will come up, if the old OSes are allowed to browse
and elect, without the Win11 machine taking control and ruining things.

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20508

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in message 
news:tov3hp$1rbj4$1@dont-email.me...
> On 1/2/2023 11:36 AM, R.Wieser wrote:

>>>> Could you explain why it was the defacto advice for a printer, but (I
>>>> assume) not for computers ?  What made up the difference ?
>>>
>>> Probably because network discovery didn't work properly.
>>
>> That was the only thing I could think of myself and why I asked for the
>> difference between the two.  IOW : Why the "for a printer" destinction 
>> and
>> not "for any networked device" ?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rudy Wieser
>
> I think the device types, have varied in their ability to work properly.

Again, thats the only thing I could come up myself too.   Odd though, a 
'puter working quite alright in that respect, but a printer failing to do 
the same consistently enough to have caused that "just give it a static IP" 
phrase.

Thanks for the reply.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20495

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 00:21:51 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? 

Yes.

>(The previous thread was called "I can't print to my wireless printer",
>and it starts at 11/1/2022 at 6:16am ET, but after all these years, I
>still don't know if people are likely to see a new post in an old
>thread.  I am not likely to see it, but my version of Forte Agent is
>from 2002.  Since I save all the posts, a new post in an old thread will
>be many, many pages up from the page I'm looking at this week.)

It's fine to save all messages, but be aware that your version of Agent
(v 1.93) has a "1 million" message maximum per group, IIRC. Agent 2.0
increases that to 8 million messages per group, I believe.

Regardless, saving all messages doesn't mean that you have to display
all messages. At the top of the Message List window, (the upper right
window), you should see a pair of binoculars. Just to the right of that
is your current Message View. It probably says "All Messages". Double or
triple click it and the view selector will open. Select "Unread
Messages" (or "Unread Messages with Bodies" if you don't automatically
download bodies for each message). Now you'll see only the Unread
messages, even the replies to really old threads, without having to
scroll through endless read messages. You can change the view back to
All Messages whenever you like, but that's not a very practical view.

As you read a message, it'll probably get marked as Read, since that's
the default behavior. It'll stay in your view until you click to another
group and come back, at which point it will be hidden.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20501

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 02:18:11 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 00:21:51 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? 
>
>Yes.
>
>>(The previous thread was called "I can't print to my wireless printer",
>>and it starts at 11/1/2022 at 6:16am ET, but after all these years, I
>>still don't know if people are likely to see a new post in an old
>>thread.  I am not likely to see it, but my version of Forte Agent is
>>from 2002.  Since I save all the posts, a new post in an old thread will
>>be many, many pages up from the page I'm looking at this week.)
>
>It's fine to save all messages, but be aware that your version of Agent
>(v 1.93) has a "1 million" message maximum per group, IIRC. Agent 2.0
>increases that to 8 million messages per group, I believe.
>
>Regardless, saving all messages doesn't mean that you have to display
>all messages. At the top of the Message List window, (the upper right
>window), you should see a pair of binoculars. Just to the right of that
>is your current Message View. It probably says "All Messages". Double or
>triple click it and the view selector will open. Select "Unread
>Messages" (or "Unread Messages with Bodies" if you don't automatically
>download bodies for each message). Now you'll see only the Unread
>messages, even the replies to really old threads, without having to
>scroll through endless read messages. You can change the view back to
>All Messages whenever you like, but that's not a very practical view.

I agree, although there are clearly many others who don't, and like it
to be All Messages.

I keep mine set to Unread and Not Ignored.


>As you read a message, it'll probably get marked as Read, since that's
>the default behavior. It'll stay in your view until you click to another
>group and come back, at which point it will be hidden.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20507

On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 07:08:55 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 02:18:11 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 00:21:51 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Is a Static network connection more static than Auto? 
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>(The previous thread was called "I can't print to my wireless printer",
>>>and it starts at 11/1/2022 at 6:16am ET, but after all these years, I
>>>still don't know if people are likely to see a new post in an old
>>>thread.  I am not likely to see it, but my version of Forte Agent is
>>>from 2002.  Since I save all the posts, a new post in an old thread will
>>>be many, many pages up from the page I'm looking at this week.)
>>
>>It's fine to save all messages, but be aware that your version of Agent
>>(v 1.93) has a "1 million" message maximum per group, IIRC. Agent 2.0
>>increases that to 8 million messages per group, I believe.
>>
>>Regardless, saving all messages doesn't mean that you have to display
>>all messages. At the top of the Message List window, (the upper right
>>window), you should see a pair of binoculars. Just to the right of that
>>is your current Message View. It probably says "All Messages". Double or
>>triple click it and the view selector will open. Select "Unread
>>Messages" (or "Unread Messages with Bodies" if you don't automatically
>>download bodies for each message). Now you'll see only the Unread
>>messages, even the replies to really old threads, without having to
>>scroll through endless read messages. You can change the view back to
>>All Messages whenever you like, but that's not a very practical view.
>
>I agree, although there are clearly many others who don't, and like it
>to be All Messages.
>
>I keep mine set to Unread and Not Ignored.

Yes, Unread and Not Ignored is a very practical view.

Over 20 years ago, in the early days of Forte Agent, we used to get
urgent requests from people who had been advised to change their message
view to one of the Unread variants, but then they'd panic when their
old/read messages 'disappeared'. Good times.

>>As you read a message, it'll probably get marked as Read, since that's
>>the default behavior. It'll stay in your view until you click to another
>>group and come back, at which point it will be hidden.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20496

micky wrote:
> Is a Static network connection more static than Auto?
> 
> If I set a printer's network IP address, network mask, and Gateway and
> mark it STATIC, does that make it less likely that the printer will
> forget what the settings are?   Less likely than if it was done with
> AUTO/APIPA or DHCP?

In principle, yes.

The printer will almost certainly forget these if it is "factory reset". 
  It's unlikely this will happen by accident, but it's not impossible 
that a brief power interruption could cause it.  Some devices retain a 
static IP despite a factory reset, or take on a different static IP 
address specified by the manufacturer.

The problem with a static setting is that you have to keep a note of the 
values you set, so that you don't issue the same IP address to another 
device on your LAN.

The advantage of the automatic setting using DHCP is that the router 
provides the printer with a sensible IP address.  How sensible depends 
on your router.  Some routers can be configured to recognise the MAC 
address and issue a specific IP address that you choose; others might 
simply remember what IP address was previously issued to that device and 
issue the same one.

The computer needs to know how to communicate with the printer.  If it 
uses TCP/IP then you must tell it the printer's IP when you 
install/configure the driver.  It might use a node name or other 
proprietary mechanism to find the printer (as your BRAdminLight app 
does).  Each printer manufacturer may offer a different app to achieve this.

If I remember correctly I think the problem you had was that the printer 
was unable to communicate with your router (i.e. the DHCP server) so 
assumed an autoconfiguration IP address.  Removing the unreliability of 
WiFi is the only rational solution to this difficulty.

If you mix automatic and manual settings between different devices you 
might run into problems when a manually configured device is powered 
down, and the DHCP issues that device's IP address to something else. 
Later, the manually set device is powered up and problems then arise.

In summary:

= The automatic settings ought to work, but when they don't you have to 
understand every detail of the process to resolve the problem.  "Black 
Magic" solutions like "power everything off and back on" may appear to 
work, but don't resolve wahtever underlying problem caused the failure 
in the first place.

= The manual settings will work reliably but you need to understand 
every detail in order to set everything correctly in the first place, 
and keep proper notes.

So there's no substitute for having a thorough understanding of all the 
details.

So here's a technical exercise:  Suppose you bought a secondhand device 
that you had seen working, but it doesn't work when connected (by wire) 
to your LAN.  What are all the possible things that could have gone 
wrong, and how would you resolve the problem?



-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20499

In article <touer0$1o6bt$1@dont-email.me>,
   Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> The advantage of the automatic setting using DHCP is that the router 
> provides the printer with a sensible IP address.  How sensible depends 
> on your router.  Some routers can be configured to recognise the MAC 
> address and issue a specific IP address that you choose

That  is the system I use here. Everything on the network is given it's
same ip address every time

-- 
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20500

On 2023-01-02 14:01, Stuart wrote:
> In article <touer0$1o6bt$1@dont-email.me>,
>     Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>> The advantage of the automatic setting using DHCP is that the router
>> provides the printer with a sensible IP address.  How sensible depends
>> on your router.  Some routers can be configured to recognise the MAC
>> address and issue a specific IP address that you choose
> 
> That  is the system I use here. Everything on the network is given it's
> same ip address every time

But the problem micky has, DHCP is not reliable in his setup; sometimes 
his printer doesn't get an address, and switches to the backup protocol, 
and the printer disappears in Windows.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.hardware

csiph-web