@Evil_Oliverlord It will never assign an address that is outside the pool, so no reservation is ever needed.  Just give the device its static IP.

  @DVair 

DVair wrote

  @Evil_Oliverlord It will never assign an address that is outside the pool, so no reservation is ever needed.  Just give the device its static IP.

? The way to give the device a static IP is via address reservation.

In any case, this limitation seems to serve no purpose and clearly irritates many people. What's the argument for keeping it?

  @Evil_Oliverlord If you want a device to have an address that is outside the DHCP range, you set the IP on the actual device itself.  A reservation is for reserving an adress from the pool itself, so that the DHCP server does not hand it out.  

  @DVair 

Many devices don't allow for selection of a static IP, but there are nonetheless reasons to want them to have one.

I think it's clear from this forum that many people would like to be able to use address reservation outside the pool, and in fact it is possible to get there with the above workaround. I'm suggesting TP-Link simply make this easier.

  @Evil_Oliverlord when setting up a network there is no such thing as reserving an IP outside of the pool, it just doesn't work that way.  The way you are doing it will work for a while, but if you reboot the router or the system with the static address time runs out, it may not get back that IP that you want for it.

I feel like maybe semantics are getting in the way; perhaps I'm not using the right terms.

1. It's clearly possible to broaden the pool, reserve and address, contract the pool, and have the router respect a reservation that is now outside the pool - even through router reboots.

2. Other routers allow reservation/assignment of addresses outside the pool, so it's clearly technically possible for routers in general, even if TP-Link doesn't permit it.

In any case, there's clearly a client interest in assigning addresses from a portion of the address range that is not used for dynamic IP address assignment - whatever terms you use.

  @Evil_Oliverlord 

Address reservation outside of the pool range is no longer considered to be a valid configuration.  Here is a link to a Microsoft article.

  @jra11500 

Based on that very article then, how about if TP-Link allows us to "also define an exclusion range", which would accomplish the same thing?

  @Evil_Oliverlord 

That sounds like a good idea.  Maybe Tp-Link will pick up on this.

  @Evil_Oliverlord 

Just for your piece of mind, you are right in everything you are stating and Yes, TPLink needs to emplement this feature as it is common amongst well known manufacturers of network products. The link the poster provided is for Windows Server specifically, not personal routers.