# Force update of IP / hostname / clientname relationship

**URL:** <https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/force-update-of-ip-hostname-clientname-relationship/36585>\
**Category:** Community Help\
**Created:** [August 2, 2020, 10:51am UTC](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/force-update-of-ip-hostname-clientname-relationship/36585 "2020-08-02T10:51:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 26

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Coro](https://discourse-cdn.pi-hole.net/user_avatar/discourse.pi-hole.net/coro/32/15424_2.png) [@Coro](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/u/Coro)\
**Post date:** [August 12, 2020, 7:23am UTC](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/force-update-of-ip-hostname-clientname-relationship/36585/26 "2020-08-12T07:23:47Z")

</div>

> [@jpgpi250](#):
>
> often fails to enter this info, even if the data is available (separate configuration file, added to dnsmasq).

Have you confirmed (using `dig -x`) that the information is really available? Maybe there is some other problem.

> [@jpgpi250](#):
>
> the `new/super-clients` branch doesn't solve my, and I assume other users, problem

> [@jpgpi250](#):
>
> My pi is isolated on a separated physical network, and doesn't see anything but the router/firewall (4 port) interface.

Looking at your description and your screenshot, I don't think this affects a lot of users. They typically don't separate (V)LANs at home. This is not to say this is not an important thing, it is just maybe less common than you'd expect.

> [@jpgpi250](#):
>
> You're always assuming that `arp -a` and / or `ip neigh` (the equivalent code in pihole-FTL) is able to figure out the MAC address of the clients.

I think this is a good assumption. How should it work differently? As long as Pi-hole does not know the foreign MAC address, it cannot know which devices belong together.

> [@Adding alias-clients to Pi-hole FTL](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/adding-alias-clients-to-pi-hole-ftl/37084/12):
>
> > [@jpgpi250](#):
> >
> > Appreciate your work, but again, just like the `new/mac-clients` , the `new/super-clients` branch doesn't solve my, and I assume other users, problem.
> 
> Maybe because it wasn't designed to?

Yes, I guess that's the issue. If Pi-hole has thousands of users, maybe tens of thousands (we don't know because of the anonymity of the downloads from Github and no Pi-hole telemetry), a lot of unusual network configurations will show up. If the information is not available, how should Pi-hole (automatically) detect which address belong to which device.

> [@Adding alias-clients to Pi-hole FTL](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/adding-alias-clients-to-pi-hole-ftl/37084/13):
>
> Can I suggest `psuedoclients` then instead? Super clients seems like they have powers and capabilities above normal clients.

As always, just oppnons: I disagree with `pseudoclients`. It somehow seems to suggest they are not really there. While one might argue that this is the case, they actually physically exist as devices and are no `pseudo`. In my understanding the term `pseudo` would cause more confusion. `super` may not be optimal, either, but right now at least it seems more descriptive for the "it is _more_ than one ordinary client".

* * *

Otherwise this is really a cool thing. I just tried it in my network and it seems to work just as expected. I even configured all my devices now and have not seen anything odd.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/force-update-of-ip-hostname-clientname-relationship/36585)._