Feature request to allow DHCP Reservation anywhere in the range

[torontob]

It would be best to have the flexibility to assign ANY IP to client on RESERVED basis. Currently, pfSense complains of IP being within DHCP range - an option to override that will be a great improvement. Maybe a warning would suffice rather than forcing user to change the whole network infrastructure.

Does this feature have any likes?

[doktornotor]

Certainly no likes from the pfSense developers, denied multiple times. Move on, not going to happen.

[Cino]

There is a why around it but its up to you to figure out

https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Why_can%27t_I_have_static_mappings_inside_my_DHCP_range%3F

hint
/usr/local/www/services_dhcp_edit.php
/* make sure it's not within the dynamic subnet */

[jimp]

The tricky part is the "RESERVED" part. That is not possible with ISC DHCPD. There is a reason why we don't allow it (documented on the page Cino linked)

Static mappings are a preference, not a reservation. The IP address from a static mapping can be assigned dynamically if the host that usually has the mapping is offline.

[johnpoz]

There is also simple way to do where everyone is happy.

So lets say your dhcp pool is .100 to .200 and you just are hell bent on having a "reservation or static" assigned for .150 right in the middle of that pool.

Just adjust your pools, multiple pools have been available for quite some time.

So create pool .100 to .149, and another pool for .151 to .200 - so now you have a overall pool of .100 to .200 with a static for your .150 box.

[jimp]

That is a good workaround for one or two in the middle, but not if you need to scatter them around or just take current lease values and make them "stick".

It would be possible for the code to automatically generate a bunch of new pools to allow for reservations in the middle, but that seems like it could get really ugly, really fast. Especially for failover.

[johnpoz]

yeah it would be a real pain if you had lots of them to do.. Its ok if you have them all in one group of ips or just a couple of them.

I don't see any issues with current setup to be honest.  What is the difference if the box has .99 or .201 that outside your scope of .100 to 200 or inside that at .150 - that sort of requirement seems anal to the highest degree ;)

[sekrit_skworl]

@jimp:

The tricky part is the "RESERVED" part. That is not possible with ISC DHCPD. There is a reason why we don't allow it (documented on the page Cino linked)

Static mappings are a preference, not a reservation. The IP address from a static mapping can be assigned dynamically if the host that usually has the mapping is offline.

I am trying to connect my HDHomerun Prime (Which SiliconDust states would require either DHCP or DHCP reservation NO STATIC)

I need my Homerun prime to operate on subnet 2.  The tuner device (Homerun Prime) keeps going to subnet 4.

It is both connected to the Subnet 2 designated ethernet connector and the MAC is assigned to the DHCP server for subnet 2. 
I've rebooted the router, and Tuner device multiple times.  I have cleared old active/inactive leases.

I have loaded "/var/dhcpd/var/db/dhcpd.leases~" & "/var/dhcpd/var/db/dhcpd.leases" and cleared old leases there as well.

I am an in from desperate, as I have been attempting for 3 weeks now.  What on earth could I be failing to do?

[Derelict]

You should start another thread. And give more details about these subnets 2 and 4.

[johnpoz]

You trying to run 2 subnets over the same wire??  devices on subnet 2 it would be impossible to get an dhcp address from subnet 4..  Unless you think you can just run 2 different address schemes over the same wire and run 2 different dhcp servers??