Manual interface still issuing dhcp request

October 7, 2009 at 10:38:37
Specs: Windows XP SP3
This just recently started happening - on two PCs with XP SP3. Both were configured with DHCP for their primary address on their ethernet interfaces, and with a manual secondary address to access a management LAN.

I had problems with secondary addresses (defined manually via regedit) changing to 0.0.0.0, so I disabled DHCP on both and manually configured both the primary and secondary address from the gui's properties page. Yet according to both the Network Connections window and ipconfig from the command line, the interface is still issuing a dhcp address, and both manually configured addresses are reported as 0.0.0.0 both by ipconfig and by the status panel on the Network Connections window. Any ideas?


See More: Manual interface still issuing dhcp request

Report •


#1
October 8, 2009 at 06:56:07
Try using the repair button on the network properties page or use the command line "net stop" and then "net start" in the command prompt...

If not you may have a reg problem from editing the reg and maybe a update has done it's work. A 3rd party reg fix program should fix this.


Report •

#2
October 8, 2009 at 08:20:20
Basically all the repair button does is disable then re-enable the interface...

I compared registry entries (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces\{E1FF1BEF-35F2-457F-B541-5D2E9350307D}) for the interfaces on both PCs with a 3rd PC not connected to the same internal network, and they're basically identical.

Has anyone ever heard of an ethernet or wifi interface, totally configured manually & DHCP disabled (EnableDHCP=0x0), still issuing a DHCP request? And with ipconfig, the Network Connections status pane and the status window of the interface itself all showing an IP address of 0.0.0.0 when the registry still shows the secondary address after the 0.0.0.0 in the IPAddress key - just doesn't make sense.


Report •

#3
October 9, 2009 at 06:22:47
There is such a thing as static DHCP where a particular machine will always be given the same address in the DHCP range. I have that for my laptop running FreeBSD.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the 0.0.0.0 IP in ipconfig.

How do you know when a politician is lying? His mouth is moving.


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
October 9, 2009 at 07:50:41
Remember that I'm talking purely from the client PC's point of view. I have no control over the DHCP server. In this case the DHCP provider is a public WiFi provider, and their tech support is, shall we say, not that technical.

I know about static addressing in DHCP - in fact years ago before DHCP was created I kludged a similar feature for DOS machines using "net config" to grab its MAC address to populate a bootp server's database - IOW, I know a little about networking. And static DHCP is how I normally configure my own wireless router's DHCP server config.

But I'm talking about the client here, not the server. My real point is under what condition would Windows XP's IP client software be either (a) really issuing a DHCP request even though it's disabled in the registry entry for that interface, or (b) why would ipconfig and the Network Connections status page report that it was waiting for a DHCP response from a server if the client IP stack didn't issue a DHCP request.

And what I'm talking about regarding 0.0.0.0 in ipconfig is that even though I've added a secondary address to the IPAddress key for that interface in the registry (the key data is "0.0.0.0 192.168.128.10") and the SubnetMask key ("0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0"), when I run the command ipconfig, it shows only the 0.0.0.0 address and netmask, not the other entries.

You do know something about secondary IP addressing in XP, don't you? Of course, Microsoft's GUI screws it up if you're not careful since Microsoft believes that there's no reason a user would want a DHCP primary and a manual secondary address on the same physical interface. It's much simpler to do in Linux (and I believe BSD, but I haven't messed with that since the 386BSD days).

Any gurus have a clue?


Report •

#5
October 9, 2009 at 08:08:59
"Has anyone ever heard of an ethernet or wifi interface, totally configured manually & DHCP disabled (EnableDHCP=0x0), still issuing a DHCP request? And with ipconfig, the Network Connections status pane and the status window of the interface itself all showing an IP address of 0.0.0.0 when the registry still shows the secondary address after the 0.0.0.0 in the IPAddress key - just doesn't make sense."

Well Wifi will because it works off of profiles and switches your settings depending on the profile setup for the Wifi near it. You can turn this off by unchecking the automatic connect (Which by the way can be a security issue because any one with Wireshark can pickup the hand shake packets that the profile transmits every 5 seconds). The only problem with this is that you will have to manually set all of your setting when you move from one WiFi to another.

A better solution would be to do as some one suggested which is to setup an IP reservation for the MAC of the Wifi. This is done on the server side. It basically gives out the same IP for that MAC every time it connects and it turns off the TTL. Then you configure your WiFi to be dynamic instead of static so that you can leave the autoconnect properties turned on and the DHCP server will do the rest.

The problem is that you said that you do not have access to the DHCP server. Then I would get a cheap router that has DHCP and hook it to them using a WiFi Bridge. Then you will have your own DHCP server. I know this is not sexy but the best solution is to educate the owners of the DHCP server on how to setup DHCP or get another provider.

Try not to beat people up too much on the forum because IPX is a little different from TCP/IP and we can't assume that just because you know IPX and BootP that you know TCP/IP and ARP.


Report •

#6
October 9, 2009 at 08:31:17
A better solution would be to do as some one suggested which is to setup an IP reservation for the MAC of the Wifi. This is done on the server side. It basically gives out the same IP for that MAC every time it connects and it turns off the TTL. Then you configure your WiFi to be dynamic instead of static so that you can leave the autoconnect properties turned on and the DHCP server will do the rest.

Try not to beat people up too much on the forum because IPX is a little different from TCP/IP and we can't assume that just because you know IPX and BootP that you know TCP/IP and ARP.

Who said anything about IPX? I'm "beating" people up because they're not reading the information I'm supplying - including you. I've said I have no control over the DHCP server in this case - it's a public WiFi network. All I have control over are my client PCs. And instead of reading into what I'm writing and making assumptions, let me re-iterate what I've said before and add even more info:

It's even happening on the ethernet interfaces, as I've said before. I can hook up both PCs to my client WiFi bridge/repeater (an Engenius EOC-8610S) via ethernet. DHCP is disabled on the client side. Why is the interface still trying to issue a DHCP request. The whole reason for the secondary IP address is so that I can easily reach the management interface on the WiFi client bridge. Normally it's on the WAN side of my little Netgear nat router, but since the Netgear doesn't support secondary addressing on it's ports, I have to temporarily move the client repeater to the LAN side of it so I can manage it. The whole system is portable, so I have to change the SSID in the wifi repeater frequently.

If none of you have ever heard of that happening on XP, then that's fine. Just don't make assumptions that static DHCP reservations done on the server would be (or not be) causing this. In my mind - the problem is with the two clients. And the fact that it happened pretty much simultaneously after a Windows update lends me to believe that it could possibly be caused by a recent patch. Has anyone ever run into this before?


Report •

#7
October 9, 2009 at 09:02:55
Don't beat up anyone for not reading supplied information! You're the one who didn't mention anything about updates in your first post! Uninstall the updates & see what happens.

How do you know when a politician is lying? His mouth is moving.


Report •


Ask Question