Solved Windows XP cannot ping address 169.254.10.10

August 28, 2012 at 07:26:48
Specs: Windows XP
I bought a usb printer server to connect my usb printer to my router. USB cable to the print server and cat 5 from the print server to the router. The print server has a static fixed ip of 169.254.10.10 and a subnet mask of 255.255.0.0 I can ping the printer server and it works perfect from my windows 7 laptop.

When I attempt to set it up on my windows xp (SP3) laptop I am not even able to ping the 169.254.10.10 address. On the windows 7 laptop i can navigate to the print servers menu by placing 169.254.10.10 in the address bar of internet explorer. No so with the xp laptop.

What is different about the ip configuration between win xp and win7.

Any ideas on how to get the xp laptop to "see" the print server. Want to keep the print server at the default settings if possible.


See More: Windows XP cannot ping address 169.254.10.10

Report •

✔ Best Answer
August 29, 2012 at 05:37:15
Hi,

Ok I did get my print server to work with all my laptops last night. The solution (as mentioned above) was to sent the print sever ip to a static ip that is in the range of dhcp addresses handed out by my router and make the subnet mask to 255.255.255.0

I also added the ip i selected to be excluded from the available addresses pool just to be on the safe side, although I dont think it would have ever been assigned. I used 192.168.11.64. My router issues ip's in the range of 192.168.11.2 thru 192.168.11.64

As far as why XP could not ping 169.254.10.10 I could only determine that Windows 7 uses a newer TCPIP port configuration than xp whatever that means.

I never did an IPCONFIG as Carl suggested to see if the tcpip settings were the same. I probably should have, but changing the ip address and mask put the print server in the same address pool and mask as all other devices in my network.

All works fine now and all my wireless laptops can print to my HP printer.

Great site, great info! Thanks for all your suggestions.



#1
August 28, 2012 at 07:34:01
We'll need to see the TCP/IP settings of both the Windows 7 laptop and the XP computer so we can compare and see what's different. To get us that information, do the following on both computers:

Open a command prompt window (ie: Start >> Run >> type cmd and hit Enter) and perform the following command:

ipconfig /all

Once you've finished, copy/paste the output into a response on here so we can have a look.

For info on how to copy/paste from a command prompt window click on my name above and read my "how-to" guide titled, "Post the output of ipconfig (version 2)"

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#2
August 28, 2012 at 07:35:49
Will do and report back this evening. Setup is at my home. Thanks!

Report •

#3
August 28, 2012 at 07:45:43
It's really not sensible, IMO, to use link-local address ranges as fixed or dhcp allocated ip addresses. Such use is prohibited by RFC 3927. Stick with one of the private address ranges (10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, or 192.168.0.0/16). I would reconfigure all of your network devices to use one of those address ranges.

My guess would be that your Windows 7 machine is on a different subnet to the XP one and print sever.


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
August 28, 2012 at 08:14:43
Yes... I would change the ip of the print server to be a static 192.168.x.y address and the sn mask to 255.255.255.0 and then exclude it from the dhcp range of my router. But I did want to try to use it with factory defaults because at some point in the future it will probably need to be reset and then I would be trying to figure out how I had it configured. But if we are only talking ip and sunbet mask I should be able to document that. ;)

My theory is for some reason the xp laptop is not able to see the 255.255.0.0 subnet?

I did a pathping on the win7 laptop and the only hops were from my Windows 7 laptop and then directly the print server in question.

The pathping 169.254.10.10 executed on the win xp laptop went from the laptop, then to my router and then to my moden and then to my internet service provider trying to locate the ip.


Report •

#5
August 28, 2012 at 08:26:15
I doubt that 169.254.10.10 was a factory default. It's only used when a NIC is looking for a DHCP address and can't find a DHCP server. The default for print servers and similar devices is almost always to use DHCP. It sounds as if the device couldn't find your DHCP server for some reason so that is the address that the print server randomly assigned to itself. As I said, don't use it as a fixed address on any of your network devices - it is reserved for very special situations.

I'm surprised that your router passed the 169.254.10.10 address to the Internet; it shouldn't do that.

"7. Router Considerations

A router MUST NOT forward a packet with an IPv4 Link-Local source or destination address, irrespective of the router's default route configuration or routes obtained from dynamic routing protocols.

A router which receives a packet with an IPv4 Link-Local source or destination address MUST NOT forward the packet. This prevents forwarding of packets back onto the network segment from which they originated, or to any other segment."


Report •

#6
August 29, 2012 at 05:37:15
✔ Best Answer
Hi,

Ok I did get my print server to work with all my laptops last night. The solution (as mentioned above) was to sent the print sever ip to a static ip that is in the range of dhcp addresses handed out by my router and make the subnet mask to 255.255.255.0

I also added the ip i selected to be excluded from the available addresses pool just to be on the safe side, although I dont think it would have ever been assigned. I used 192.168.11.64. My router issues ip's in the range of 192.168.11.2 thru 192.168.11.64

As far as why XP could not ping 169.254.10.10 I could only determine that Windows 7 uses a newer TCPIP port configuration than xp whatever that means.

I never did an IPCONFIG as Carl suggested to see if the tcpip settings were the same. I probably should have, but changing the ip address and mask put the print server in the same address pool and mask as all other devices in my network.

All works fine now and all my wireless laptops can print to my HP printer.

Great site, great info! Thanks for all your suggestions.


Report •

#7
August 29, 2012 at 07:10:39
The solution (as mentioned above) was to sent the print sever ip to a static ip that is in the range of dhcp addresses handed out by my router

I wouldn't do that, you risk a "duplicate IP address" error. As long as the IP you use is within the subnet but outside the DHCP scope, you're ok.

Example:

192.168.0.0/24
First address: 192.168.0.1
Last address: 192.168.0.254
Broadcast address: 192.168.0.255
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0

DHCP Scope = 192.168.0.100 through to 192.168.0.199

I would use any IP between 192.168.0.10 and 192.168.0.99 for network appliances/printers/servers that require statically assigned IP's. I would leave 192.168.0.1 through .10 alone as .1 is typically your default gateway address and assigned to the LAN side of your router.

All clients should be using the same subnet mask regardless.

You should never use APIPA addresses in your LAN. If you did, you'd only make troubleshooting connectivity issues that much harder. If you're not sure what APIPA is, google it.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#8
August 29, 2012 at 08:43:27
"I wouldn't do that, you risk a "duplicate IP address" error. As long as the IP you use is within the subnet but outside the DHCP scope, you're ok."

The OP said that he had set that address to be excluded from the addresses to be assigned so there is no possibility of a conflict. It's perfectly valid to have a DHCP address range with some marked as excluded (and others may be marked as always being assigned to a particular device).


Report •

#9
August 29, 2012 at 08:48:58
The 169 is an APIPA range so it is a private IP. You can use it within a lan but it an odd sort of way to do it. Normally you put it on the same subnet as your local lan.

Be sure the w7 is not on apipa and consider logging into this print server to change the static ip to a range within your local subnet. Take the dhcp of the modem/router and put it to some high number.


"As far as why XP could not ping 169.254.10.10 I could only determine that Windows 7 uses a newer TCPIP port configuration than xp whatever that means"

That is wrong. IP is IP. The rules follow a set of IP plus subnet mask plus gateway. The only unusual thing might be one of two other issues. One is UPNP and IPV6. Either could have allowed the box to ping.


Report •

#10
August 29, 2012 at 14:52:39
The OP said that he had set that address to be excluded from the addresses to be assigned so there is no possibility of a conflict.

Right, I had forgotten that the OP had previously mentioned using an exclusion/reservation. I suppose I should go back and reread each part of a thread before responding but I have to admit, I'm frequently a little lazy in that department.

Still, it makes no sense to me to exclude/reserve an IP out of your DHCP scope, thus reducing the pool of available IP's. I've always preferred to do that from outside the DHCP pool. Especially in situations where you use your entire pool.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#11
August 29, 2012 at 23:40:40
I wouldn't suggest that you reread every post in a thread when replying, but it is probably a good idea to read the post you are replying to. That is where the OP said he had excluded that address from the DHCP range.

I won't argue about the wrongs and rights of excluding particular addresses from a DHCP range, but anyone who has managed a large network could give you a few. It's a facility that most DHCP servers allow and is perfectly acceptable.

Anyway, the OP has solved his problem, which is what matters.


Report •

#12
August 30, 2012 at 09:36:07
Excluding an IP or IP range from dhcp is a normal way to run a dhcp server. Included in that are reserved ip's for gateways or other devices that need to remain as static. One could have instead of excluding, might have reserved the ip for that mac address.

Either way may have worked or one could have figured out what the original issue was.


Report •

#13
August 30, 2012 at 11:56:02
I've always found it just as easy, and effective, to leave blocks of IP's I plan on using for static assignments out of the DHCP scope. This way I don't have to do the extra work of reserving or excluding. But that's just me, I'm lazy that way.

Am I the only one here who thinks we're discussing someone's home network which isn't using more than say, 10 IP's?

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#14
August 30, 2012 at 23:40:20
When a poster comes up to a solution to their problem that not only works but is correct practice then I feel it is counterproductive to tell him he is doing something wrong.

The OP has solved his problem; it works for him and it is normal practice. Let's just leave it at that rather than trying to impose our own working methods.


Report •

#15
August 31, 2012 at 05:41:29
Hi,

Yes I suppose I could have just made the print server ip 192.168.11.65. Just outside of the dhcp assigned address pool. That would have resulted in one less custom configuration change for my Buffalo Air Station router.

At the time I just decided to keep it in the dhcp range and exclude it from being assigned dynamically.

I still have a lot to learn about the router but it seems to be working fine for me. I want to search or start a new topic about wheather it is better to bridge my modem and let my isp hand an ip directly to it or to have it "see" my modem first and have my modem assign the ip to my router. No need to start a discussion on that topic here. Let me search and if I can't find any topics I'll start a new thread.

Regards


Report •

#16
August 31, 2012 at 07:18:19
ijack

The OP has solved his problem; it works for him and it is normal practice. Let's just leave it at that rather than trying to impose our own working methods

This looks like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

Reread response #2. Take note of the "at my home" portion of it.

While use of reservations and exclusions in a large DHCP based environment is what is taught to be "best" practice (not "normal" or "correct" just best) it's not some hard and fast rule contrary to how you're making it sound.

I suspect if you care to be honest about it, you'd have to agree that in a small environment, it's not necessary or really worth the extra work. And we are talking about a very small environment here.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#17
August 31, 2012 at 07:19:57
As I said, the OP's problem has been solved. Let's not waste any more time on this.

Report •

#18
August 31, 2012 at 07:28:53
sohccammer427

That would have resulted in one less custom configuration change for my Buffalo Air Station router.

That was pretty much my point all along. A lot of people learning the trade will do the extra work for practice (and fun, we're a weird sort!). But for the average home user, it's not necessary and usually involves learning something new.

As to the rest, I would start a new thread, this one's gotten long.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#19
August 31, 2012 at 08:26:42
As I said, the OP's problem has been solved. Let's not waste any more time on this.

I notice you carefully didn't respond to what I said in my last response to you. I know you didn't respond because I am correct with regard to using exclusions/reservations in a small "home" LAN environment.

I bet you don't bother using them on your SOHO Router at home any more than anybody else does.

If you wish the conversation to end that's simple. Just don't respond again.

But don't expect me to not defend myself, or my position on a topic when you outright tell me you're right and I'm wrong and I disagree with you.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#20
August 31, 2012 at 08:43:37
It is only a discussion, there is no rule that a discussion end when the OP is happy. Generally so but anyone who might search for this topic may wish to also view other options.

I don't see what all this is about. An opinion is just an opinion.


Report •

#21
August 31, 2012 at 08:56:45
"But don't expect me to not defend myself, or my position on a topic when you outright tell me you're right and I'm wrong and I disagree with you."

No Curt; I haven't said anyone is right or wrong. What I was objecting to was you telling the OP he was wrong in your reply #10. It may make no sense to you but it does to others. The only thing that I think you are wrong about is to dogmatically tell a poster that he is doing the wrong thing when he isn't. Review my posts and I don't think you will find that I am telling anyone to do anything (apart from my initial remarks that link-local IP addresses should not be used in normal practice, as per the RFCs) or that anyone's advice is wrong.

I did reply to a somewhat sarcastic remark from you (#10) in a similarly sarcastic manner (#11). I'm sorry if that upset you but that's always a danger when we start employing sarcasm.

Actually, I don't use my router for DHCP. I have an OS X server that handles that. And no, I have no exclusions in the DHCP range - I use fixed addresses assigned to MACs; but that is rather more complicated and is not what I would recommend to anyone (unless they were already doing it, in which case no sweat).

Now that really is enough from me. I'm happy to discuss technicalities but I'm not going to get involved in silly arguments.


Report •

#22
August 31, 2012 at 10:11:59
No Curt; I haven't said anyone is right or wrong.

No, you didn't out and out say "Curt you're wrong". You did however seem to be implying you were right and I was wrong in your response #14 where you used the phrases, "correct practice" and "normal practice". The implication, to me at least, was that my method was not "correct" or "normal" and yours were. Which, again to me, translates to "I'm right, you're wrong".

What I was objecting to was you telling the OP he was wrong in your reply #10.

Nowhere in #10 did I say the OP was wrong. In fact, I've jus reread all my responses and the closest I came to saying the OP was wrong was #7 where I said, "I wouldn't do that, you risk a "duplicate IP address"

Besides, my response in #10 was directed at you, not the OP.

I did reply to a somewhat sarcastic remark from you (#10) in a similarly sarcastic manner (#11). I'm sorry if that upset you but that's always a danger when we start employing sarcasm.

Oh I definitely employ sarcasm..........frequently even. But my response in #10 was not meant to be sarcastic. I admitted to having made a mistake. As you pointed out a post or two later, I misread the exact response I was responding to and not a previous one............much to my shagrin...........but #10 was not meant to be sarcastic in any way, shape or form.

Now that really is enough from me. I'm happy to discuss technicalities but I'm not going to get involved in silly arguments.

This wasn't meant to be a silly arguement. I think you can agree the "using exclusions in a home LAN evironment as vs not doing so" part of this discussion was technical and not silly.

I was offended by what seemed to me to be an insinuation that you were right and I was wrong.

I will admit to being a little more "scattered" than normal this week due to extenuating circumstances above and beyond the normal run of the mill day-to-day life problems which makes me a little oversensitive as well as more likely to miss an important detail such as the OP saying they used an exclusion. So in the end, if there is fault for this "silly arguement" it must be mine and I accept that.

Thank you for maintaining a professional demeanor throughout our discussion.

Have a nice weekend!

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

Ask Question