RLC-410W with latest FW continues to send DHCP requests with static IP config

[SunCat_359604577222809]

I recently updated my RLC-410W with the v3.0.0.136_20121102 firmware to pick up HTML5 support. After the update I have been noticing excessive DHCP queries coming from the camera even though I have it configured with a static IP address. It looks like someone botched the networking support in the latest firmware. There is no reason that the camera should be asking for an IP address every 5 minutes when it already has one.

[Cynthia_124785627824270]

Please submit this issue to https://reolink.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new. Our support will help you check this problem.

[SunCat_359604577222809]

I thought it would be nice to put an update in here for others that might notice the same behavior. It appears that this is intentional (??). The following is the response I received:

---
"The log you see is the Discover package(the simulated DHCP detection package) of the camera, the camera sends them to check whether the wifi network is good. The camera sends the request package about every 5 minutes. And I ask[ed our engineer] if this can be canceled? He told me no. Because when the camera sends a DHCP Discover packet, if the router receives it, it will reply to the camera, and the camera will know if it is still connected to the router."
---

The 802.11 state machine has its own beacon/probe mechanism for maintaining a valid wireless association link (including the ability to switch channels when roaming in multi-channel environment). Testing a link with DHCP probes every 5 minutes seems superfluous and excessive. It begs the follow-up question: What problem are they trying to solve by introducing this new behavior?

I guess it's a good thing that I have my old DHCP config in place so my server is at least handing back the IP I want the camera to use. I would hate to have to trust the FW to do the right thing if my DHCP server passed back a different IP from the static config (which it would normally do for other new devices being added to the network).

[svchnetv2_528701419749624]

COntinuing this: It generates Alarms in out IDP-System. This is a very wrong implementation...

[robin_477156272857242]

Dear Reolink,

could we get some traction on this? This is an absolutely wrong implemented network stack, devices with fixed IP addresses should not send our DHCP requests. In corporate environments this would be a no go.
For smart home usage, this also triggers issues (just experienced them) when other integrations (such as the home assistant reolink integration) are watching for DHCP discover broadcasts to find cameras - these would get the wrong IP addresses (e.g. https://[censored]/home-assistant/core/issues/91493)

If your devs really think this is required (even through this is the first device where I saw such a behavior), then please implement an option for another healthcheck method, such as pinging the default gateway continously or similiar).

[user_599609107550310_599609107550310]

@robin_477156272857242

ive been online with eero tech support for two days trying to figure out where a dhcp storm is coming from. You have got to be kidding me that this is the desired design. I have 65 E1 pros and they are regularly crashing my eero gateway with this nonsense.

yo, Reolink - if you can’t fix this, I have about $1k of hardware I want to send back so I can get some better cameras. This is absolutely nuts.

[blamaz_553204517843116]

I've the same problem here. My router log is full of dhcp request. Despite that the cameras are set to use a static ip in the router, constant request made one of them change it ip to an unassigned one then Home Assistant failed to connect. Reolink, please use another method to do a network health check.

[joseph_1979]

@blamaz_553204517843116 They should ping the default gateway if there is no other scope we are not aware of.

[blamaz_553204517843116]

@joseph_1979
Totally agree

[reolink_375043233833161]

I'm having the same issue with a bunch of reolink cameras connected to a Ubiquiti wifi system and a pfsense router. The router keeps reporting DHCP requests from the cameras. When I first discovered the issue, I thought Unifi Controller was at fault because it was reporting that several devices are getting the same IP address when in reality they each had a different one assigned to them by pfsense. pfsense log showed lots of dhcp requests from the reolink cameras. I updated everything to the latest release edition and the problem persists. It was only towards the end that I noticed that only the Reolink devices on my network (about 14 x E1 Zoom / Outdoor cams) were causing this issue.

I have since given the cameras fixed IPs from pfsense. The problem of unifi reporting repeat IP addresses is no longer there. But on the DHCP log on pfsense, I see a lot of requests coming from the cameras. Something isn't right and needs addressing @ reolink!

[latez1_702748087968371]

Having the exact same issue here 



 - as you can see all 3 of them for some reason decided they should be using dhcp and all of them grabbed the exact same ip address which of course isn't pingable and is causing all sorts of issues and alarms on my network. 
All these camera's are set to static ip addresses, I have this with a dozen others - We will be returning all of them and never buying another Reolink product again until this issue is resolved. 

Going to support yielded absolutely nothing useful - 

"In general, the wifi camera will send a DHCP request to detect the network connection status in order to check whether there is a wifi connection issue in time.
Attached is the latest firmware of the camera to this email, please upgrade it to see if it helps. Note: there's no need to unzip the file.

Sufficed it to say the update didn't fix anything. 

I just received one of their very latest E1 outdoor's, problem still very much exists. 

Build No. build 23021701
Hardware No. IPC_566SD85MP
Config Version v3.1.0.0
Firmware Version v3.1.0.1789_23021701
Details IPC_566SD85MPS10E1WA1100000001


#1306248 exists for tracking the non resolution.  


@joseph_1979 - Please note that this is happening across the board.

[joseph_1979]

@latez1_702748087968371 I am a customer like you and if I had to design it then I would certainly ping the gateway as most devices do.

[latez1_702748087968371]

@joseph_1979 Understood, just assumed you had some insight as a global mod - does the dev team peruse the board or is it exclusively through the ticketing system? I think clearly enough of us out here are seeing this distinct problem that needs to be resolved. Saying that this is normal when its clearly not the normal behavior for any cam or quite frankly any wifi device I've ever had is not a valid response.

Any special insight @Cynthia_124785627824270 ?

[joseph_1979]

@latez1_702748087968371 No, I don't have any visibility on their fw and hw. However, I propose a lot of ideas and improvements to the support team. It's their strategy of what to implement. Security cameras deter crimes, monitors scenarios and activities, gather evidence, maintain records and helps to arrive at the right decision. But how secure are these cameras? Do we have a means to know who logs onto the camera (IP), the duration and what has been modified or viewed? And this information should be registered and cannot be deleted by a reset, power cycle or any command. And if the cameras with SD are stolen, the videos stored on the SDs can be watched by inserting the SD in a PC. A secured camera should encrypt the recorded videos using AES 256bit and use the credentials as the key. And I have also requested that since the camera sent HB to P2P servers then the camera should have a feature that if enabled by the customers, then if the P2P server misses the HB message for say 10 times then the P2P server should alert the customer by email or push notification............. I suggested a lot of ideas.

I don't think that the development team checks what we write here. This is my personal opinion.

[latez1_702748087968371]

@joseph_1979 Appreciate your response, will keep pushing both here and via email, and via linkedin if I have to do find a director or vp of development. The only thing truly holding back a lot of their low end cameras is the quite frankly poorly implemented firmware.

[joseph_1979]

@latez1_702748087968371 Good. Absolutely that there is always room for improvements.

[fdcastel_709084875846370]

God forbid!

While this is a minor problem (Found it yesterday. Changed to static IP + blocked DHCP requests in firewall), if Reolink engineers cannot measure the consequences of their "project decisions" like this one... what should we expect from others -- more sensitive -- areas, like security?

I'm with the others. No more Reolink cameras around here. And this is not a petty thing.

What I would like to see:

- "Hey! Your cameras are spamming all my routers logs with dumb DHCP requests every 5 minutes!"
- "Oh! Sorry. Yeah, that was dumb. There! I Fixed"
- "Nice! Thanks!"

What I actually did see:

- "Hey! Your cameras are spamming all my routers logs with dumb DHCP requests every 5 minutes!"
(2 years later)
- "Anybody?"
- "This was a deliberate decision from our engineering department and they say there is nothing they can do. Believe me."
- "EVEN WHEN STATIC IP IS USED?"
- "..."

Yeah. I'm here trying to figure the average I.Q. from Reolink developers...

[latez1_702748087968371]

I wanted to update this thread in order to keep the momentum going -

I reached back out to support with the very latest camera and they were able to pass on to me what I can only assume is a beta firmware - coded specifically to my hardware revision and it seems to *finally* address the dhcp issue as the device is now showing up properly and identifying itself with the proper static ip address, and monitoring seems to be fine. I tried to use that same firmware on a handful of other E1 outdoors but it failed due likely to a hardware revision issue. Hopefully support can resolve this issue so I can patch the rest of my E1 outdoors. My assumption being that if its patchable on this specific hardware revision it should be doable on the rest, and hopefully across the rest of their product line (I don't know if it exists outside the E1's as I haven't used any of the other products).

I did raise another issue which I am sure most of you are already familiar with - the Camera's WIFI name should match the camera name variable that you set in the administrative interface - having 5, 10, 15 camera's show up in your WIFI management with the same ubiquitous Camera1 isn't particularly helpful. Small steps though. I appreciate *whoever it is* that is finally taking this issue seriously at @ Reolink but its past time. The hardware is good, better than the most of the amcrest or dahua stuff I've touched at the same price scale but your firmware has been holding you back for quite some time.

@fdcastel_709084875846370 keep it going, what camera's and hardware revision do you have??

[latez1_702748087968371]

@latez1_702748087968371

I can now happily confirm that a fixed firmware exists for IPC_523SD8 & IPC_566SD85MP (I am using both now) for a couple dozen cameras.

[fdcastel_709084875846370]

@fdcastel_709084875846370 keep it going, what camera's and hardware revision do you have??

@latez1_702748087968371 -- I had 3 units of E1 Zoom (latest models, don't remember exact hardware revision) but I already got rid of them.

That's because I want to keep a healthy distance of any product made by an "engineer" with this kind of brain damage:

"The log you see is the Discover package(the simulated DHCP detection package) of the camera, the camera sends them to check whether the wifi network is good. The camera sends the request package about every 5 minutes. And I ask[ed our engineer] if this can be canceled? He told me no. Because when the camera sends a DHCP Discover packet, if the router receives it, it will reply to the camera, and the camera will know if it is still connected to the router."

Seriously. I loved Reolink products since the first time I found them. But this kind of behavior just prove to me that they don't know sh*t what they are doing.

The development process of Reolink must be something like this: (Google "Wikipedia Infinite monkey theorem")

[user_704522064679100_704522064679100]

Yeah, this is totally shit. I reported the DHCP storm to reolink 2 years ago for the RLC-410/411, they said they'd fixed it, the latest firmware still does it. My router has hundres of IP allocations for the reolink cameras asking for random IP address when they shouldn't. They take up reserved entries in the router so confusing when I want to give those IP's to other devices. It's really a shit storm from Reolink and as I'm not a Network Engineer but I know enough to say Reolink's programmers can't comply with general networking etiquette, let alone protocols. They were sending RAW passwords over the wire for the same cameras until someone reversed engineered it and published on their blog. I just think its time to leave Reolink and go somewhere more reliable and solid.

[latez1_702748087968371]

This post is deleted!

[user_753381347442887_753381347442887]

Same issue with RLC-510WA Cameras set to static, but they still request ip address via dhcp. This is stupid! I have two C1-Pro they don't behave like this. Looks like they have fixed some camera firmwares, but not all.

[user_755966182662348_755966182662348]

Also the same issue with my E1 Zoom Pro.
The device is good so far, but the dhcp requests a total no go.
Can someone tell me, if the trackmix wifi has the same problems? Then I would avoid buying these cameras.
Thank you.

[user_758912783495369_758912783495369]

@user_755966182662348_755966182662348 I'm trying to set up a Reolink RLN8-410 wireless system. Cameras are going off line about once a minute for about 1-3 minutes. If I'm logged in via the AP on my phone, the system is more stable only losing connectivity about once every 15 minutes. I'm trying to connect via an extender to Starlink's router. I'm using DHCP on the NVR and Static on the TP-Link router. Not sure how to recognize a DHCP request in Wire Shark so I don't know if this is related. Suggestions???