Support

K-12 Forums

Talk with other K-12 network administrators in your state.

Or see all states.

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 30 days, and is thus closed.

Administrative: Network same ip?

Bottom of Page

1 to 10 of 10

  1.  
    • CommentAuthoryaegerdns7
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2008
     permalink
    I am trying to set up OpenDns on our home network.
    I am the administrator and am trying to add other computers to the network, but there is a problem
    the computers that I am trying to add have the same ip number as mine. Any ideas why?
    • CommentAuthormonanghs
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2008 edited
     permalink
    Just put DNS 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220 in every PC or your router.
    • CommentAuthorrotblitz
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2008
     permalink
    You just have one public IP address, which is visible on the internet and to OpenDNS. This is normal. If you configured your router to use OpenDNS, all computers and other devices in your network use it.
    • CommentAuthorRed Prince
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2008
     permalink
    "Any ideas why?" There are fewer version 4 IP addresses available than there are computers. That is why.

    If we ever finally switch over to version 6, which it seems will never happen, then every computer and every other networking device in the galaxy will be able to have its own IP address. Until then your ISP gives your entire network one public IP address shared by all devices connected to your network.
    • CommentAuthorrotblitz
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2008
     permalink
    "Until then your ISP gives your entire network one public IP address shared by all devices connected to your network."
    What a lucky guy, as he got one IPv4 address exclusively for himself! I know about ISPs who give one shared IPv4 address to thousands of users/networks!...
    This, of course, knocks a rational usage of services like OpenDNS out.
    • CommentAuthorRed Prince
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2008
     permalink
    "I know about ISPs who give one shared IPv4 address to thousands of users/networks!" In a free market world? Why would anybody give them their business?
    • CommentAuthorrotblitz
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2008
     permalink
    This is nothing to do with "free market", but with this:
    http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/index_en.html as you already correctly stated. IPv6 can solve these problems. I am already pretty active on IPv6.
    Not sure what parties (them, their) you refer to by "them their business".
    • CommentAuthorRed Prince
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2008
     permalink
    By them I meant those ISPs who do not assign each customer a unique IP. Why would anyone pay them when, in the free market, their competition does give each customer a separate IP address?

    Yes, I am aware of IPv4 depletion. I also know it has not happened yet.

    As for IPv6, my computer uses it, too. But only within the local area network. IPv6 is still a theoretical concept here in the US. Even 10 years after it was introduced.
    • CommentAuthorrotblitz
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2008 edited
     permalink
    "their competition does give each customer a separate IP address".
    This will later or sooner no longer be possible with IPv4. :sad:

    "IPv6 is still a theoretical concept here in the US."
    No, it is not really a concept only. I use it a lot for useful things. The IPv6 internet is alive already - if not in the US, then in other countries, which can be reached from the US! :bigsmile:
    • CommentAuthorelsmea
    • CommentTimeDec 23rd 2008
     permalink
    if you're talking about your internal network, i.e. the one within your building, then it's a DHCP issue. Check your clients and make sure they are set to get IP addresses automatically and then check to make sure that your DHCP server is set to allow enough clients on the network. Doesn't sound at all like a DNS issue... if I'm reading you correctly.

1 to 10 of 10

  1.  

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 30 days, and is thus closed.