Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2011 14:09 UTC
Internet & Networking "One of life's minor annoyances is having to wait on my devices to connect to the network after I wake them from sleep. All too often, I'll open the lid on my EeePC netbook, enter a web address, and get the dreaded 'This webpage is not available' message because the machine is still working on connecting to my Wi-Fi network. On some occasions, I have to twiddle my thumbs for as long as 10-15 seconds before the network is ready to be used. The frustrating thing is that I know it doesn't have to be this way. I know this because I have a Mac. When I open the lid of my MacBook Pro, it connects to the network nearly instantaneously. In fact, no matter how fast I am, the network comes up before I can even try to load a web page. My curiosity got the better of me, and I set out to investigate how Macs are able to connect to the network so quickly, and how the network connect time in other operating systems could be improved." Yes, I'd love to have Windows and Linux reconnect as fast as Macs do. Alas, "Method to quickly reconnect to a wireless or wired network", as well as its completely different "Method to quickly reconnect to a wireless or wired network on a mobile device" are probably patented, so Windows and Linux can't reconnect too fast out of fear of violating a software patent. In case you haven't noticed: I'm joking. Sort of.
Thread beginning with comment 480801
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:


"I think the proper word is 'configured', not 'coded'.

There could be a bunch of reasons, one i can think if is:

If you have a bunch of computers that have static ip addresses manually configured, you may want to tell your dhcp server not to issue those addresses to anybody and to reject anybody who ask for them"

For one thing, static IP clients don't use DHCP, so I don't exactly get the logic that it has to be configured to ignore them.

Never the less, why would one ever want to configure static IP addresses in the same range as the DHCP server is handing out?

Reply Parent Score: 2

mtzmtulivu Member since:

Never the less, why would one ever want to configure static IP addresses in the same range as the DHCP server is handing out?

I think we are talking over each other here since we havent really defined what we mean by "range" and i think we are using the same word but we mean two different things.

I have a dhcp server here and this is a part of what i got in its configuration file

subnet netmask
option subnet-mask;
option routers;
default-lease-time 21600;
max-lease-time 43200;
option domain-name-servers;

with this configuration file, it does not make sense to manually configure a computer with an ip address of and i think dhcp server will complain about it if/when it notices this computer but it makes perfectly good sense to have a computer with a static address of

When i said "range", i meant all addresses in address space. The same dhcp servers i am nanaging gives addresses on multiple interfaces running on different networks so when i said "range", i did not mean "a range of addresses within the same network" but "all addresses in a given network address", see the difference?

When you said "range", i think you meant those addresses btw and in my configuration file. ie, a range of addresses within the same network. In this regard,you are right, it does not make sense to have static ip addresses within this range. dhcp server will probably complain about it if it finds out.

hope this clears out the misunderstanding

Edited 2011-07-13 22:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2