Firetrust Support Forums

I have pretty much decided to give my wireless printers static IP addresses. However I have some questions:
1. Is there a range of addresses I should avoid because I run HideAway? I think I have read somewhere that VPNs tend to operate within a certain range.
2. When I run "IPconfig /all" the IP address for IPV4 is 192.168.1.112 preferred. But my printer properties and my printer console show 192.168.1.109 for my printer. I recognise this is not a HideAway issue but can you explain why this is and which is the IP address?
3. My chalet router appears to have a DHCP range of 192.168.1.2 - 192.168.1.254. I understand that I should not use either .1 or .255 but does it matter if I select an address that is within the routers DHCP range or should I first restrict the range and then chose something outside the restriction?

Frankly, this is all a bit beyond my pay grade so I hope I am making sense.

Thank you.

Andrew42 wrote:I have pretty much decided to give my wireless printers static IP addresses. However I have some questions:
1. Is there a range of addresses I should avoid because I run HideAway? I think I have read somewhere that VPNs tend to operate within a certain range.

It shouldn't matter. You'll be assigning your printer a local IP address in the 192.168.1.x range which HideAway will (should) ignore. These don't interfere with HideAways operation.

Andrew42 wrote:2. When I run "IPconfig /all" the IP address for IPV4 is 192.168.1.112 preferred. But my printer properties and my printer console show 192.168.1.109 for my printer. I recognise this is not a HideAway issue but can you explain why this is and which is the IP address?

Not something I've seen before. Found this blurb :
You can have more than one IP addresses on each network, depending on the number of network cards in your computer. The preferred one is the IP address the computer is going to use by default on each network.

So possible the .112 was the IP assigned to the printer when connected on another network, but has the .109 IP on the current network ?
That is a bit of guess

Andrew42 wrote:3. My chalet router appears to have a DHCP range of 192.168.1.2 - 192.168.1.254. I understand that I should not use either .1 or .255 but does it matter if I select an address that is within the routers DHCP range or should I first restrict the range and then chose something outside the restriction?.

Just stick within that range and the router handles the rest. There's no need to restrict the range either, the entire 192.168.x.x block is reserved for private use.

Purely as a matter of preference, when I assign static IPs to local devices I try to do so in a way I can remember. For example if this were the HP6500 printer setting up, I'd use 192.168.1.65

Thank you very much for such a speedy and comprehensive answer.

Update:
Changed the IP address range in my router to stop at .140
Changed IP address for printer to a number outside the router DHCP range. Initially tried to do this on the printer's web page but it always failed so eventually I set it up on the printer itself. (HP 5600n).
Entered the printer MAC address and IP address into the router
Rebooted Router, PC and printer
After some initial hiccups everything appeared to work except the printer appeared as off-line on my PC. Googled the problem and found that I needed to add an new TCP/IP port to the printer properties.
Everything works just fine now, HideAway works and the printer now runs while HideAway is working. Why this should be with a static IP and not with a dynamic one, I do not understand but the essential is that, thanks to everyone's support, I think this issue is dead and buried.

Great, glad to hear it's better. Not sure where Nick is at with getting our hands on a similar printer, hopefully not far off.

Cheers for your patience too!

Got ourselves a wireless printer, added a global exclude rule for 239.255.255.250 which is a multicast IP address used by wireless printers and other devices for plug and play. So restart HideAway and it should all work as expected!

Thank you Nick for the follow up.

So far so good!