Hello Deckyon,
Actually, I’m heading your way soon to attend my niece’s high school graduation in Pikeville.
Well, it’s done and my fate is sealed as you and gsahli will see below. I configured an old “flying saucer style” Airport to connect to a wired network through the WAN port and hand out the Apple default 10 addresses. It worked fine on my 192 network allowing access to the Internet so I took it to the 169 network whereupon it would hand out addresses but stubbornly refuse Internet connection.
The 169 network came into existence many years ago (at least 15 years). My client needed a simple VPN connection so his daughter could connect via terminal services to their server. I chose the simplest SnapGear for around $300 because it was the only router anywhere near that price that implemented Microsoft’s PPTP protocol. It came thoughtfully configured with a 169 address so it would play nice with an existing network when being hooked up for the first time. You could run its setup program (I assume it found it by the MAC address) and do what you needed. After that, you could use its web interface. I noticed on the DHCP tab that it was also ready to administer addresses in the 169 range.
If you work on computers at all, you know how people freak out if they can’t connect to the Internet. Clients, friends, wife, moms, and dads-no one will wait until you get there to see what’s wrong. They’ll head for the router and push the reset button. In this case, the server and one other machine needed static IPs so I left the network as 169 figuring that if they reset it on their own the VPN settings would be trashed but, at least their local network would remain intact and they could access the server after a reset. By now, at least two or three dozen PCs spanning several versions of Windows have been connected to this network and accessed the Internet without a problem.
Admittedly, I have little formal TCP/IP (or network) training but I am a voracious reader. The only admonition against using the 169 range I have found to date (other than everyone’s posts here) is found in RFC 3927: “Administrators wishing to configure their own local addresses (using manual configuration, a DHCP server, or any other mechanism not described in this document) should use one of the existing private address prefixes [RFC 1918], not the 169.254/16 prefix.”
However, the admonition seems to be related to the fact that duplicate addresses might occur, not a failure to use any DHCP supplied gateway address for Internet access:
“Note that addresses in the 169.254/16 prefix SHOULD NOT be configured manually or by a DHCP server. Manual or DHCP configuration may cause a host to use an address in the 169.254/16 prefix without following the special rules regarding duplicate detection and automatic configuration that pertain to addresses in this prefix.”
Other literature mentions that implementation of the 169 APIPA addressing scheme is left to the vendor so we can draw the obvious conclusion that Uncle Bill chose one way and Steve another.
At the end of the day I am a practical sort and desire inclusion of as many different devices as possible. If Mac computers cannot, for whatever reason, utilize a DHCP supplied Gateway address if given a 169 IP address then I will, at my own expense, take down the network and reconfigure it to one of the RFC defined private network address ranges. Gotta keep grandma happy.
Thanks to all (or as I would say in person--y’all). I’ve been deservedly beaten to a pulp and admit to being a happy (but wiser) idiot.
jvf
Actually, I’m heading your way soon to attend my niece’s high school graduation in Pikeville.
Well, it’s done and my fate is sealed as you and gsahli will see below. I configured an old “flying saucer style” Airport to connect to a wired network through the WAN port and hand out the Apple default 10 addresses. It worked fine on my 192 network allowing access to the Internet so I took it to the 169 network whereupon it would hand out addresses but stubbornly refuse Internet connection.
The 169 network came into existence many years ago (at least 15 years). My client needed a simple VPN connection so his daughter could connect via terminal services to their server. I chose the simplest SnapGear for around $300 because it was the only router anywhere near that price that implemented Microsoft’s PPTP protocol. It came thoughtfully configured with a 169 address so it would play nice with an existing network when being hooked up for the first time. You could run its setup program (I assume it found it by the MAC address) and do what you needed. After that, you could use its web interface. I noticed on the DHCP tab that it was also ready to administer addresses in the 169 range.
If you work on computers at all, you know how people freak out if they can’t connect to the Internet. Clients, friends, wife, moms, and dads-no one will wait until you get there to see what’s wrong. They’ll head for the router and push the reset button. In this case, the server and one other machine needed static IPs so I left the network as 169 figuring that if they reset it on their own the VPN settings would be trashed but, at least their local network would remain intact and they could access the server after a reset. By now, at least two or three dozen PCs spanning several versions of Windows have been connected to this network and accessed the Internet without a problem.
Admittedly, I have little formal TCP/IP (or network) training but I am a voracious reader. The only admonition against using the 169 range I have found to date (other than everyone’s posts here) is found in RFC 3927: “Administrators wishing to configure their own local addresses (using manual configuration, a DHCP server, or any other mechanism not described in this document) should use one of the existing private address prefixes [RFC 1918], not the 169.254/16 prefix.”
However, the admonition seems to be related to the fact that duplicate addresses might occur, not a failure to use any DHCP supplied gateway address for Internet access:
“Note that addresses in the 169.254/16 prefix SHOULD NOT be configured manually or by a DHCP server. Manual or DHCP configuration may cause a host to use an address in the 169.254/16 prefix without following the special rules regarding duplicate detection and automatic configuration that pertain to addresses in this prefix.”
Other literature mentions that implementation of the 169 APIPA addressing scheme is left to the vendor so we can draw the obvious conclusion that Uncle Bill chose one way and Steve another.
At the end of the day I am a practical sort and desire inclusion of as many different devices as possible. If Mac computers cannot, for whatever reason, utilize a DHCP supplied Gateway address if given a 169 IP address then I will, at my own expense, take down the network and reconfigure it to one of the RFC defined private network address ranges. Gotta keep grandma happy.
Thanks to all (or as I would say in person--y’all). I’ve been deservedly beaten to a pulp and admit to being a happy (but wiser) idiot.
jvf
