PDA

View Full Version : DHCP oddities...



Malor
2006-01-28, 03:01
Not sure if this is the right forum or not.... apologies if this is the wrong place.

I'm seeing a slightly odd behavior with the Squeezebox via DHCP. I'm not sure if it's the Squeezebox itself causing the problem, or if it's my WRT54GS (Linux flavor, running 4.70.6 firmware, the latest Linksys version.)

Basically, I'm trying to set the Squeezeboxes at fixed addresses. But the MAC address that the DHCP server sees is not the correct one. Both Squeezeboxes are requesting a DHCP address with 20:05:73:00:00:0c. But after they get their address, they show via normal ARP resolution at their regular, correct MAC addresses.

I think this actually may be some weirdness in the WRT54GS, I've seen DHCP be strange through Linksys stuff before. I just want to verify that nobody knows of any bugs in the Squeezebox firmware that would cause this problem?

Michaelwagner
2006-01-28, 07:00
Well, there is a bug whereby the Slims occasionally forget their MAC addresses, but then they usually go for big numbers, like FF:FF:FF etc. They don't normally borrow a MAC address from their neighbours :-)

Browny
2006-01-28, 08:17
Just a guess but your Linksys might be getting upset with the Squeezebox not presenting a Name to register with.

While this is unusual in a network environment it works fine on both the DHCP servers I've used.

See the thread below:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19120

MrC
2006-01-28, 09:47
Malor,

This is a bug I discovered and reported. See:

http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221

Michaelwagner
2006-01-28, 10:09
Malor,

This is a bug I discovered and reported. See:

http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221
This bug is specifically about bridging.

Are you bridging?

Malor
2006-01-28, 16:45
Yes, I'm bridging with both units. I just turned it on with the second one, and noticed this issue while troubleshooting it getting the wrong IP address. The possibility that it might be the bridging just hit me about ten minutes ago... in fact, it was that thought that prompted me to log in and read replies. :)

This isn't a show-stopper for me, but if it's fixable, I'd love to see it repaired. I prefer using DHCP reservations for fixed-address machines, so I can make network changes easily, or move computers to a new network without much effort.

Other than turning off bridging or going to static addressing, are there any other workarounds I could try? This isn't a critical problem, and I can wait for a fix if it'll be awhile before one shows.

I'd be happy to help test a beta firmware, too.

pfarrell
2006-01-28, 16:53
Malor wrote:
> Other than turning off bridging or going to static addressing, are
> there any other workarounds I could try? This isn't a critical
> problem, and I can wait for a fix if it'll be awhile before one shows.

How about running a DHCP server that you can configure to
assign fixed IP addresses based on the MAC?
That is what I do for all of the machines in my house,
I use DHCP, set them to the same values, and have
that in my DNS. The DHCP makes adding new boxes
easy, and allows folks to bring laptops in
for work and access.

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

MrC
2006-01-28, 16:57
It was pretty clear to me from your MAC address that you had bridging enabled, and were encountering the bug I submitted and researched.

There is new firmware (v29) just updated today. Perhaps you can download tonight's 6.2.2 or 6.5 build and test it out to see if its fixed. I've already updated my firmware, but haven't tested it for that particular fix yet.

I don't know of any workarounds, as the 20:... MAC address changes, so you can't rely on it either.

Malor
2006-01-29, 04:17
Pfarrell, I don't think you read my original post correctly. That's what I am already doing. You're describing my home network almost exactly.

The problem is that there is a bug in the Squeezebox firmware. When it makes a DHCP request with bridging enabled, it does so with the *wrong MAC address*. And that MAC address was the same on both my units, so I can't assign an address based on it. Plus, according to the guy who originally spotted this bug, that wrong MAC address also changes unpredictably, so even if it were just one Squeezebox, it would *still* break.

MrC, I'll try the updated 6.2.2 later on, and will post back with results.

Malor
2006-01-29, 05:41
Version 29 of the firmware is even worse. The players are both now requesting DHCP addresses with the MAC address 00:00:00:00:00:10. So they both get handed the same IP address by the server (I'm not sure why this didn't happen before; perhaps they were slightly different and I just didn't see it.) This renders the second Squeezebox nonfunctional.

I see the bug is tagged for fixing in the 6.5 release... if 6.5 doesn't release soon, I think the fix should be backported. This is the kind of problem that would make users' heads spin. Multiple Squeezeboxes in bridge mode in a DHCP network can't be _that_ unusual, and the MAC address conflicts, when they happen, are going to cause much pain.

Having the WRONG MAC address, as long as it's unique, even if it changes, isn't that serious. Having multiple Squeezeboxen with the SAME MAC address, on the other hand, would appear to be a critical-severity bug.

Michaelwagner
2006-01-29, 08:00
I see that the severity on the bug is "Normal". According to the bug's life definitions, I think it should be one of these:

Critical crashes, loss of data, severe memory leak
Major major loss of function

dean
2006-01-29, 18:06
I've found and fixed the problem, look for it in the forthcoming
firmware v30.

Malor
2006-01-30, 00:11
Great! when it's available, let me know, and I'll be happy to test it.

Thanks!

MrC
2006-01-30, 10:01
Malor (and others),

I can confirm that the bug was resolved.

Malor
2006-01-30, 11:33
Excellent. (that was fast!) Is the updated firmware in the nightly 6.2.X build?

Michaelwagner
2006-01-30, 11:42
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a company that responds faster with microcode updates when needed.

dean
2006-01-30, 11:44
No, it will be in firmware 30 when that is released. The bug will be
marked resolved at that point. Probably a day or two.

On Jan 30, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Malor wrote:

>
> Excellent. (that was fast!) Is the updated firmware in the nightly
> 6.2.X build?
>
>
> --
> Malor
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Malor's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1961
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=20496
>
>

Malor
2006-01-30, 11:48
I am more pleased with my purchase all the time. A great product by a great company. I know I've helped to sell quite a number of them... it's nice to see that my praise was well-placed. :)