UPDATE 10/4 6:47 EDT

I have been going through all the comments. THANKS!!! I did not know about the techniques listed, so they are extremely helpful. Sorry for the slow update. As I mentioned below, I got behind with this yesterday so work cut into my evening.

I ran a port scan. The first syntax, -p, brought no joy. The nmap software itself suggested changing to -Pn. That brought an interesting response:

nmap -Pn 1-9999 <Local IP Addr>

Starting Nmap 7.93 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2024-10-04 11:44 BST

Failed to resolve “1-9999”. Nmap scan report for <Local IP Address> Host is up (0.070s latency). All 1000 scanned ports on 192.168.0.46 are in ignored states. Not shown: 990 filtered tcp ports (no-response), 10 filtered tcp ports (host-unreach) Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 6.03 seconds Just to be absolutely sure, I turned off my work computer (the only windows box on my network) and reran the same syntax with the same results.

As I read this, there is definitely something on my network running windows that is not showing up on the DHCP.

UPDATE 10/6

I am working through all these suggestions. I am sorry for the slow responses, but I have my hands full with family weekend. I will post more next tomorrow. But I did do one thing that has me scratching my head and wondering if this may be a wild goose chase.

I ran the nmap again per below with a completely fictional IP address within my normal range. It gave the exact same results:

nmap -A -T4 -p- -Pn <Fictional IP>

Starting Nmap 7.93 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2024-10-05 13:36 BST Nmap scan report for <Fictional IP>

Host is up (0.054s latency).

All 65535 scanned ports on <Fictional IP> are in ignored states.

Not shown: 65525 filtered tcp ports (no-response), 10 filtered tcp ports (host-unreach)

Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 182.18 seconds