Data incorrect only on VPN computers

[amclaughlin]

The computers that log into our network via VPN are not reporting correctly. It seems to show information from other computers on the network. Is it reporting the information by IP and picking up the info from the computer that had that IP before? An lstrigger seems to correct this problem, but it will later arise again. Our "in office" computers do not seeem to have this problem.
Has anyone else seen this problem?
Would performing more frequent scanning help? How can I do that for only some computers?

[Hemoco]

Please download the latest lansweeper 3.5.2 beta, this should fix the problem.
Let me know if it works.

[coughcool]

amclaughlin wrote:
The computers that log into our network via VPN are not reporting correctly. It seems to show information from other computers on the network. Is it reporting the information by IP and picking up the info from the computer that had that IP before? An lstrigger seems to correct this problem, but it will later arise again. Our "in office" computers do not seeem to have this problem.
Has anyone else seen this problem?
Would performing more frequent scanning help? How can I do that for only some computers?

Am,
Yes, that is exactly what is happening. On the first “scan” the IP address is recorded as a “binding” to the computer’s information. Unfortunately, with DHCP all of your systems will eventually have this issue. The only reason you notice it on VPN is because their IP Addresses change more frequently. What we need is a way to “bind” on computer name or SID or something that does not change and not “IP Address”. We are tracking over 400 network nodes and have this very issue.
Does anyone have any idea on how to get around this?

[Hemoco]

coughcool wrote:
On the first “scan” the IP address is recorded as a “binding” to the computer’s information.

This is actually incorrect, each scan a new dns lookup is performed.

So far we haven't been able to reproduce the problem.
Any info on IP/dns configuration, ... is welcome.

[amclaughlin]

We are using active scanning.

[wim_dh]

We are using the lsclient.

[Hemoco]

Do you have this behaviour with active scanning or with lsclient?

[wim_dh]

I'm having the same problem over here after updating to V3.5.1.