IP address of printer 2

[JeeatTT]

I have a number of printers attached to the network which is a Windows Server 2003 one.

I've taught myself how to assign a static IP address to a PC by assigning it a reservation with the IP/MAC addresses, but notice it reads Inactive.

I've learned that I can activate it on a PC by using IPCONFIG /RELEASE and then IPCONFIG / RENEW.

But I've no idea how to activate it with a printer which has an IP address assigned by the server.

I do hope you can help me.


Regards,
Julia

 

[jimbopalmer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhcp

I assume you are talking about "Static DHCP Assignment" (by DD-WRT), "fixed-address" (by the dhcpd documentation), "DHCP reservation" or "Static DHCP" (by Cisco/Linksys), and "IP reservation" or "MAC/IP binding" (by various other router manufacturers).

You do not mention which printer, but you are going to need to set the printer (front panel or web GUI) back to DHCP, and, often, reboot it.

I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.

 

[dberg35]

IP printers also have MAC addresses and you should be able to assign it the same way.

 

[JeeatTT]

I've reserved the IP address to MAC address for each printer using the DHCP control panel in Windows Server 2003.

(For the PCs I decided instead to ask users to use the computer name for Remote Desktop instead of the IP address method I'd been using previously, so I don't need to worry about them).

One of the printers which changed its IP address was a Konica Minolta BizHub C20P (similar to a Magicolour 4650DN) and I decided to browse the menus before leaving home and realised that DHCP was still set to ON, so I turned it off and checked that the IP address remained the same. I'm hoping this will prevent it havings its IP changed by the server ....

The other one that changed is a Canon 2380i multi-function copier/scanner/printer.

The other 2 printers are Kyocera FS-1750 and FS-1920 printers - they haven't changed IP recently but I want to be sure they don't in future.

If you can help me further, I'll be pleased.


Regards,
Julia

 

[burtsbees]

You can set static IP addresses on the printers and tell the dhcp server to exclude these in the DHCP-OFFER packets. I know how to do this on a Cisco router/switch, but not Windoze...

Burt

 

[dberg35]

The other option is you can manually set the IP in each printer.

 

[burtsbees]

I just said that.

Burt

 

[VinceWhirlwind]

Far better from a management point of view would be to set them all to DHCP and then print to them by name.
That way there is no need to ever worry about what IP addresses anything gets, so long as the scope doesn't fill up.

 

[burtsbees]

And when DNS goes down...just an opinion...

Burt

 

[VinceWhirlwind]

When DNS goes down, they can't get to their file servers, mapped drives, etc etc etc , you name it so I think printing would be the least of their problems.

 

[kmills]

Julia,

After you reserve the IP address on your DHCP server, you need to power off the printer and turn it back on.

Occassionally, I had to power off, unplug the network cable, then plug it back in & turn on the printer (because my switches were hanging onto the old address).

Anyway, that should force your printer to pull the reserved address you gave it.

However, once in a great while, I had a printer that simply would not pull the address I reserved for it. So, in that case, I assign the IP manually on the printer, and also reserved the IP in DHCP. Then after a week or so, I connected via the web to the printer and changed it from Manual to DHCP.

Good luck,
KMills

 

[burtsbees]

To each their own, I suppose. I have always set printers and servers manually myself. I know that anyone in that subnet should be able to reach it no matter what---DHCP goes goofy, DNS goes weird, etc. When printers are assigned different drivers, they should all appear in a drop-down list anyway (Windows, Linux).

Burt

 

[VinceWhirlwind]

The problem I have with manually assigning IP addresses is that it is a duplication of effort: you already have your IP addresses documented/centrally-managed in one place (DHCP server)and you are creating the need for a 2nd place where IP addresses are manually managed in a spreadsheet, which is less-than-foolproof.

This efficiency is just as useful for an office with a single printer as for an organisation with thousands of them.

If you think through the potential objections (eg, you've suggested DHCP or DNS failing), you find they don't really matter - any failure affecting a service needed by printers will affect everything else as well.

Apart from the efficiency benefit, you reduce the risk of IP conflicts arising and - my favourite - it makes IP migrations and relocations a breeze compared with having a building stuffed full of statically-assigned devices.

As you say - to each his own - however resistance to this is I have found largely a result of "fear of change" and habits among techies who have "always done it this way".

 

[burtsbees]

Or...I have never been involved with a large environment...
Change is my middle name---I was a construction guy before I got into computers...

Burt

 

[VinceWhirlwind]

The people I work for at the moment can't cope with the idea of changing the way they do this - obviously my fault for not being able to convince them of the benefits.
Everytime they relocate a building full of people I ask them who is doing the printers and how much work they would save if they didn't have to reconfigure them all, but they still don't get it.

 

[burtsbees]

There is another mantra...

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

"Go with what ya know!"

Burt

 

[VinceWhirlwind]

I definitely agree with your first one - but disagree with your second - "what you know" might be out-of-date or something.
Doing brand new stuff is often very cool.

For example - upgrading your firmware on your network devices is something you might do on release of the new code rather than only in response to a detected bug or problem.
The new code might give you access to a new feature which you can use to streamline a process or provide extra functionality.

 

[burtsbees]

True---perhaps I should change that to...

"If all else fails, go with what ya know"

I know what you mean by peoples' fear of change, and can imagine the opposition you may have come across, as I have myself, with any ideas that may require changes, drastic or not. Needs for expansion, greater speeds of data transfer, etc. require change, sometimes great. Without change, we'd still be using DECNET, ruled by ARPA, and everything would be owned by Telenet, and all the trunks between WAN sites would be 56K.

 

[VinceWhirlwind]

I guess it depends on how busy you are.

If you're run off your feet all the time, you might not have time to experiment with stuff and learn new things.

And sometimes it's hard to find space and equipment, too.

And some things can only really be assessed when introduced into a production environment. And if management don't support change, you can't really do it.