DHCP binding not accurately reflected by client

[LateLearn]

This may be an issue with packet tracer itself. I probably just need to start a new "template".

as shown on the right, my router has a dhcp pool that was created under the 192.168.0.0 network and it was working fine earlier but now one of my host is picking up a random IP address not within the network specified. I've tried switching it from static to Dynamic a few times but no luck. Anyway, I'm just going to start fresh but if it's more than an error, I'd like to know! Thank you ,  community!

[Georg Pauwen]

Hello,

post your Packet Tracer project file...

[paul driver]

Hello

Whats this random ip addrees , is it 169.254.x.x address by any chance?

[LateLearn]

Sorry to get back to you so late. I ended up just scrubbing the file. BUT YES it was! It was 169.254.231.233, exactly, I think. Is this due to actual cisco mechanics or is it a bug??

[paul driver · Accepted solution]

Hello

So then this isn’t really a random address it an APIPA address which is from a specific range of subnet that mostly windows pc acquire in the abstance of a dynamic ip address allocation such as dhcp.

I cannot confirm to you for sure if this isn’t a bug if you think that’s is a possibility but usually this is down to basically your pcs not able to communicate with the dhcp server or that a switch or router isnt relaying dhcp request/responses correctly to/from the dhcp server on behalf of the client.

[LateLearn]

ah ok gotchya. the weird thing is that I had a pool named test set up that it was binding to (and getting ip addresses from the set 192.168.0.0 "range" ) but it stopped working for some reason, just on that one PC. Anyway, I scrubbed the project but that explains really I need to know. Maybe I put too many excluded-addresses or something and so maybe that caused to fall back on what you were talking about.. I don't know. If I come across it later, I'll be sure to mention and save the file though! Thank you guys!

[paul driver · Accepted solution]

Hello

TBH - I wasn’t aware it was working for some clients in the past so i would like just to add another possible would indeed be exhaustion of the dhcp scope 

Anyway glad to hear it’s now working and thank you the rating and letting us know