Re: Printer responds to wrong IP address

Trevor Perry schrieb:

It does not seem so, but is it possible that you have conflicting IP
addresses on the network?

We had a printer that worked sporadically, then
we discovered another device on the network was using the same IP address.


On 8/24/08 9:49 PM, "Jeff Crosby" <jlcrosby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If this should be in another list, please let me know.

We have 2 Zebra label printers connected via wireless. Last Thursday
night the night manager called me and said that one of them was out of
labels. I stopped it from home so the remaining labels automatically
went to the other Zebra.

When I arrived the next morning, that Zebra was NOT out of labels, but I
could not get it to work. Could not even get a ping response to it's IP
address of 192.168.0.38. Spent hours working on it.

We also have a Ricoh laser connected via wireless that was having some
jamming problems. That tech showed up right after lunch and, in
passing, mentioned the Ricoh was saying there was another device on the
network with it's IP address of 192.168.0.34. On a lark, I varied off
and powered off the Ricoh. Then I pinged it's .034 IP address and got a
response! Then I powered off the Zebra, tried the ping again, and got
no response. I changed the Zebra's System i address to use the .034 IP
address at it printed! Yet the Zebra's front panel says it's IP address
ends in .038. The Zebra has a web config page which I reached via the
.034 address, yet even after reaching it at this address, it SAYS it's
IP address ends in .038. I have changed the IP address to .038 via both
the front panel and via software, yet it stays at .034 (and yes, the
front panel does indeed still report the IP address as .038).

Has anyone ever seen anything like this? I'll be calling their tech
support on Monday.

I'm in an online web class all week (mornings) so my responses will be
spotty. Thanks.

Be careful when using leading zeros in IP-Addresses.
This is misleading depending on the platform. I find it very confusing, if a setup
on a device is using this notation.
When using Windows, this kind of IP-notation is silently converted octal-decimal,
depending on the value.
Evidence: Try to do a ping from the command line to 192.168.1.034.
This is converted to: ping 192.168.1.28 and if using 192.168.1.038 this pings
192.168.1.38 (note the '0' was dropped by Windows in here).
So depending on what the programmer of a certain device's setup (web)-interface
thought or meant, this leads to unpredictable results.
Back to RFC's : you should NOT use leading zeros in dotted decimal notation
of IPv4-Adresses, this is not defined in the standard.

Thus: 192.168.1.034 is not equal 192.168.1.34 (sometimes) ;-)

Regards,