Facing issues with DHCP and 2 APs
-
@Gertjan
They are unique yes.
(I'll probably maybe get around to it) -
Possible is : device 2c:fe:4f:0b:52:2f is deaf : it can request a DHCP, but doesn't receive (hear) the answer.
Ditch the device, and done ^^ -
@Gertjan I'd love to but then I'd have to ditch like a lot of devices lol. What I can tell is that if a device connects from one AP to the other with the same MAC it just goes loony, I've tested this with nothing on the network but the APs and the router, and even tried changing the switches but still same old, really perplexing to me honestly.
-
You use ISC DHCP or Kea ?
-
@TheAmongler said in Facing issues with DHCP and 2 APs:
but I guess the device itself doesn't see the router or something.
APs don't need any routing, they don't even need a gateway.. The only reason they would is if you were going to admin them from a different network.
What APs are you using?
None of what your saying makes any sense - an AP is just a bridge from wireless to wired.. Having multiple AP on the network doesn't matter you could have 2 or you could have 20... I have 3 on my network..
You talking about the client not getting the arp reply? So pfsense IP is 10.27.27.1 - what sort of box is it? This mac 3e:f9:d6, isn't a known maker.. Normally you would think the nic in your router would be a known mac address..
That 2c:fe4f is Xiaomi Communications Co Ltd
but I don't see who the maker of this mac address is 3e:f9:d6 - which should be pfsense nic..
example mac address of my pfsense IP is
192.168.9.253 00-08-a2-0c-e6-2400:08:a2 is ADI Engineering, Inc.
So with only 1 AP on the network.. and your client working - what does it show for the mac address of pfsense IP 10.27.27.1 ? Do an arp -a on it.. What does pfsense show for the mac address of the ciient..
Adding another AP, another bridge shouldn't matter unless their is a loop.
-
@Gertjan ISC and kea both have the same issue, but it's ISC
-
@johnpoz
Yeah im talking about the client not receiving the reply, the nic is an intel, but I don't remember which model exactly so I'll have to check later, the box itself is just some old pc that I turned into the router, I mentioned it in the old thread but maybe I should have mentioned it again here, pfsense is running under proxmox currently, however it ran directly on the machine before that and faced the same issue. As far as I know there shouldn't be any loops, the only connection between the APs is that they are wired to the same switch but that's it. I'll get you the command results as soon as I am able to.EDIT: I forgot to mention what APs but its just some normal tplink ones
Thanks for your replies
-
So this should be the output right?
I just chose the table itself cuz it looked cleaner, but I can get the console output if you also need it.
It's a little hard for me to only have 1 device on the network right now as people are on it, so I can redo this if needed a little later.The fact that this happens when any 2 APs are on the network is what confuses, as in I know it shouldn't be happening, yet it does and I really don't know or understand why.
-
I don't know if its relevant at all here, but I just noticed that one of the APs can see the other as a LAN client, while the other doesn't, dunno if that affects anything though.
-
@TheAmongler said in Facing issues with DHCP and 2 APs:
but I just noticed that one of the APs can see the other as a LAN client
Can you show what you saw ?
-
@Gertjan Yeah sure,
AP 1:
AP 2:
-
The "Client list" will get populated if the AP has its own DHCP server activated - this is not, and should not be the case.
The LAN Device List looks like a ARP list to me.
The 3e:f9:d6:76:a1:cf - 10.27.27.1 is probably the device hooked up to the wired LAN, pfSEnse.
The others are, I guess, connected or known Wifi clients on this AP.edit : you are comparing two different lists from two different APs ?
-
@Gertjan That's strange then since DHCP is turned off on both of them.
Yeah these are client lists from the 2 APs on the network right now, I wasn't sure if it was relevant but I just thought it might be interesting
