Diversion uiDivStats client name only showing as IP address

[JasonW]

I'm using Diversion 4.3.3 with uiDivStats 3.0.2 on an RT-AX88U and can't get it to show the client names in the Query logs or the Stats report. It simply shows name-N/A but I have confirmed that I can do both an A Record and PTR Record lookup for the clients in question. Some are statically assigned and some DHCP from the router itself. I do have the dnsmasq set to forward my internal Domain to a Windows AD server which is resolving just fine. The strange thing is a couple of clients connected via WiFi did get their names recorded somewhere and show in the Stats report but not all of my WiFi connected clients are there.

Should the uiDivStats query log show the client name or only IP?
Is there a file I can update to have the client names appear in the stats report for at least the static IPs?

Thanks,
Jason

 

[dave14305]

It should be already checking several sources for client names. dnsmasq leases, router client list, query dnsmasq on the router.

uiDivStats/uiDivStats.sh at 2cfe92e998c34d169c4af79e29bc76439133cb94 · jackyaz/uiDivStats

A graphical representation of domain blocking performed by Diversion - uiDivStats/uiDivStats.sh at 2cfe92e998c34d169c4af79e29bc76439133cb94 · jackyaz/uiDivStats

github.com

 

[Ripshod]

I'm getting exactly the same - thought it was normal. Same model, same app versions, Merlin 388.2_2. I'm just interested in seeing where this goes.

 

[dave14305]

What is the output of the arp command?

 

[Ripshod]

What is the output of the arp command?

On mine

Gilly@ripshod:/tmp/home/root# arp
? (10.0.2.3) at 10:52:1c:fa:xx [ether]  on wl0.1
? (10.0.0.17) at 00:17:9a:23:xx:xx [ether]  on br0
? (10.0.2.5) at 10:52:1c:fc:xx:ee [ether]  on wl0.1
? (10.0.0.3) at 24:06:aa:26:xx:xx [ether]  on br0
? (10.0.0.19) at 00:15:c0:38:xx:xx [ether]  on br0
? (10.0.2.2) at 80:7d:3a:71:xx:xx [ether]  on wl0.1
? (10.0.0.14) at c0:74:ad:87:xx:xx [ether]  on br0
? (10.0.0.5) at f8:3f:51:ff:xx:xx [ether]  on br0
? (10.0.2.4) at 10:52:1c:fa:xx:xx [ether]  on wl0.1
? (10.0.0.16) at <incomplete>  on br0
? (10.0.0.15) at 84:7b:eb:ea:xx:xx [ether]  on br0
? (10.0.2.6) at f4:cf:a2:27:xx:xx [ether]  on wl0.1
? (10.0.0.10) at a8:f7:e0:02:xx:xx [ether]  on br0

Five of those have working domains defined in the dhcp server.

 

[dave14305]

On mine

Five of those have working domains defined in the dhcp server.

You don’t have to post it, but does the content of /opt/share/uiDivStats.d/csv/ipdistinctclients.js look correct?

 

[Ripshod]

You don’t have to post it, but does the content of /opt/share/uiDivStats.d/csv/ipdistinctclients.js look correct?

I don't see anything out of place there. All the devices configured in the dhcp server have the correct client info in that js file.

 

[dave14305]

Oh silly me. The query log makes no attempt to convert the IPs to hostnames. Only the charts try to lookup the name.

 

[JasonW]

Ok, so that was one of my questions on whether the query log does it which I didn't think so because to search box seemed to only take numerical input. My ARP command has a mix of systems with their full FQDN in front of the IPs as well as just the question marks. I've actually already switched back to AdGuardHome since I had a separate thread and figured out a way around my dnsmasq issue I had with it. I can say in AGH I clearly see it is populating the client names with a mix of ARP and RDNS, which makes reading the query logs much easier to sort what might be going on. I have a small homelab so being able to quickly track a client and see what it is querying really helps.

There was still the question on why the charts/stats report did not seem to be attempting to resolve the names because if it did a RDNS it would have successfully resolved all of the clients with static IPs. I even went so far as putting the clients in dnsmasq as host entries for a test but that didn't help. I added them to the LAN DHCPSERVER static lease section in the router as well but that also didn't help.

Either way AGH is doing what I want now which is incredible. It does use more memory than Diversion but the Load on the router seems to be the same. Speed wise everything seems equal as well.

Thanks,
Jason