LAN DNS - Include DHCP Clients Automatically
Hi,
This may already be capture, but I'm not seeing it - sorry if it's a duplicate!
I really like the whole Omada system, to me just one "gaping" hole - the DHCP clients, automatically include them in the LAN DNS table (with a LAN domain option, to be able to enter that for FQDN). Kind of like what dnsmasq or unbound do automatically on an normal Wi-Fi AP / router.
Thanks!!
- Copy Link
- Subscribe
- Bookmark
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Julian2111 Agreed! But still missing in Omada SDN. Thanks!
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Julian2111 Hi. Why static IP's? I don't do that for many of my clients ... never have. I access them by FQDN only, rely on LAN DNS from there :). Thanks!
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
There are a couple of requests around this topic (search for "local dns"). Most of the stuff revolves about getting local DNS servers in the first place, but there is also https://community.tp-link.com/en/business/forum/topic/822112.
I've personally lost most of my hope in omada: when local DNS came eventually, after months and months of really poor communication, it lacked the core feature that people needed it for, the only thing that one could not do with a separate DNS server. I'm not really sure why they are dragging their feet, or whether the whole family of omada devices is maintained by a single person... it's almost comical.
At least the stuff that is implemented works reliably.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Thank you for taking the time to share your insights within the TP-Link Community. Your feedback is greatly appreciated and has been formally documented and escalated to our Product Development Division for thorough evaluation.
At this juncture, we are unable to confirm whether the requested enhancement will be implemented or to provide a definitive timeline. We appreciate your understanding of the complexities inherent in our product-planning and development cycles.
Should you have any further suggestions or additional context to offer, please feel free to share them here. All supplementary input will be consolidated and forwarded to the relevant teams for continued consideration.
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Ethan-TP This answer is a perfect example of what I meant by "poor communication". There is no reason for this to be posted, except to show that someone is still alive. It has a couple of empty phases, no relevant or new information and doesn't even address the original poster of this thread. I'd go so far to suggest that is was not even auto-generated by some LLM, but merely a text block copied from somewhere.
To actually contribute to this discussion @Julian2111: I might agree with you that it's not that important because important hosts have static IPs, but there are severe caveats:
- if you use IPv6, you really don't want static IPs. See also the related discussion about missing support for ULA.
- you might not want to have static IPs to centralize the configuration: static DHCP configs simplify the whole management greatly and allow to have a single source of truth for IPs. Having IPs configured on the hosts and in the DNS allow mismatches (been there, debugged that, hated it)
- you might have hosts in a (semi) public IP range. Even if the IP range is not really dynamic, you probably want to configure it "as if it was dynamic" as much as possible when you move around. (been there, done that) [examples for this: (semi-)dynamic IP ranges, VPN bridges]
All things considered, I would only give hosts static IPs (as in: configured on the host and put statically in DNS) if I don't use IPv6 and everything I do is behind a fully private NAT. Doesn't really sound like *anyone* should be doing this nowadays, IMHO ;-)
- Copy Link
- Report Inappropriate Content
Information
Helpful: 3
Views: 173
Replies: 7
Voters 3
