Can I set a static IP address on my Sonos components ?

Static IP address | Sonos Community

This is the laziest, most asinine implementation of the TCP/IP stack that you could possibly produce. If you don't want to put the work into implementing TCP/IP so that you can manually enter IP information, then you shouldn't use the protocol. You idiot consumer electronics companies just don't get it.

Once again, a person with a unique configuration that doesn't apply to 99.99% of Sonos installations comes on here to complain, proceeds to hyperbolically equate not catering to their unique situation as a fatal flaw (oh sorry, make that a "crippling setback") and somehow those who explain the uniqueness of the situation are nothing but "ultra fanboys"?

And you expect us to take you seriously? You might have done better if you canned the insults and started with paragraph 2. We would have taken you more seriously. Because as of paragraph 1, most have written you off as just another case of "It's easier to fire the customer!" and your ideas, as perfect or flawed as they may be, are already brushed off as tl;dr. :8

You're behind the times. Other than for fixed devices which have no option (such as the gateway/DHCP server itself) the approved method is to use DHCP. Where an IP needs to be predetermined, utilise reservation in the DHCP server to preserve the MAC-IP mapping.

Use of static IPs (including that of gateway and DNS) configured directly into each device is error-prone and deprecated.

Oh, and MAC filtering is no security blanket at all. Sniffing a valid MAC address off the WiFi is trivial. Use a secure WPA2 key.

This is the laziest, most asinine implementation of the TCP/IP stack that you could possibly produce. If you don't want to put the work into implementing TCP/IP so that you can manually enter IP information, then you shouldn't use the protocol. You idiot consumer electronics companies just don't get it.

I just registered to like this comment. Thank you.

I've worked with hard core network types and raw consumers. I understand the network type's methods and their comfort with complete specificity and control, but this scheme does not work well with the regular consumers who are not capable of or not interested in configuring all of the details of their network. I've seen too many consumers who, when experiencing a problem, start digging for obscure options -- one of these will fix my problems, right? This 192..x.x.1 (whatever that means) works great for my router, it must work for my SONOS system too, right? Um ... that didn't work ... maybe I should use the 192.x.x.10 that my computer uses. Um, ... maybe I should pick a random number, but wait ... my router is also using 73.x.x.55 ... maybe I should use that number. Oh!, ... "root," .., there's a real option ... I'll set that for max ... Um ... or should I set it for min?

The above creates a support mess and likely robs the consumer of the plug and play experience that they wanted. If a consumer product is associated with "complicated," it will not achieve mass acceptance. For millions of SONOS players, DHCP based plug and play has worked well over the years.

There are numerous music playing products that require professional installation and work exclusively with fixed IP addresses. There is no need to fuss with SONOS products if you prefer the "professional" setup experience.

I can't imagine the confusion that would result if one was required to manually reconfigure cellphones, pads, and computers when moving from tower to tower or between hot spots.

This is the laziest, most asinine implementation of the TCP/IP stack that you could possibly produce. If you don't want to put the work into implementing TCP/IP so that you can manually enter IP information, then you shouldn't use the protocol. You idiot consumer electronics companies just don't get it.

I just registered to like this comment. Thank you.

Pity it's based on multiple misconceptions. Sonos didn't implement a TCP/IP stack; under the bonnet it is simply Linux. Moreover, people ranting like this just don't get the Sonos network architecture; they're not conventional single-homed hosts like (say) your TV or Playstation is. There are multiple physical and virtual bridge interfaces involved. Some of them don't even have IP bindings.

The only advice worth following is: use DHCP for IPv4 address assignment to all interfaces on devices that aren't internetwork gateways or DHCP servers.

Anything else is unprofessional.

This is the laziest, most asinine implementation of the TCP/IP stack that you could possibly produce. If you don't want to put the work into implementing TCP/IP so that you can manually enter IP information, then you shouldn't use the protocol. You idiot consumer electronics companies just don't get it.

I just registered to like this comment. Thank you.

Pity it's based on multiple misconceptions. Sonos didn't implement a TCP/IP stack; under the bonnet it is simply Linux. Moreover, people ranting like this just don't get the Sonos network architecture; they're not conventional single-homed hosts like (say) your TV or Playstation is. There are multiple physical and virtual bridge interfaces involved. Some of them don't even have IP bindings.

The only advice worth following is: use DHCP for IPv4 address assignment to all interfaces on devices that aren't internetwork gateways or DHCP servers.

Anything else is unprofessional.

The problem is their architecture doesn't work well on a network that isn't flat. In my case, trying to configure/setup/update/use the SONOS Connect player, regardless of the fact that its primary ethernet interface and its WLAN interface both picked up IP addresses in their respective VLANs, the device's multicast comms couldn't jump from subnet to subnet.

This is a pretty crippling setback of the unit, and isn't an issue for most modern devices within SONOS's competitive landscape.

The architecture is based on the UPnP standard, for which device discovery with SSDP relies on local subnet broadcast. (That said, some have managed to implement SSDP forwarding between subnets.)

Crippling setback? The sales don't exactly suggest that. Sonos is designed for a home/SOHO environment. Indeed it calls itself the "wireless home sound system". The vast majority of such networks are flat, or if they're not it's usually because of an accidental double NAT.

Crippling setback?

Erm...plug in...tap controller...press button...erm....erm....erm...

What's crippling.

Agreed. I'm already hitting a wall of ultra fanboyism - understand that critical evaluation can sometimes actually be a good thing, and that your wall of "can't" or "par" is only temporary. The product plug in, controller tap, button press didn't work on our network, and I spent a few hours on the line with support to try and get things working. They had noted that one of their Tier 2 engineers would be able to help me hack something together, but that the configuration wouldn't be supported going forward.

The Sonos product will evolve over time if it wants to be successful. If their current customer networks are SOHO networks, so be it. The unit still needs some work on the interface side. That being said, I'm completely comfortable behind a terminal, and don't mind jumping through hoops to make shit work. It's what I do every day.

My point is that, in an enterprise environment where multiple subnets are in place, and subnet broadcasts/packet forwarding is easily implemented, I was told in a phone call with support said that they wouldn't support their own device on our network because of how our network was designed. Mind you, we're not a huge enterprise, and have a fairly simple network as-is. Their unwillingness to work with customers in the same situation as us immediately carves out a part of the market that their product isn't available to, and currently they're OK with this. I'd imagine that complacency won't last forever.

Again, sure, maybe the device wasn't "designed" to do the simple task that many other devices on our network are capable of. A better, easier to use, competitively placed product will inevitably come along and require that Sonos evolve their product to meet market requirements in order to remain successful. The fact that I had to type in direct HTML URI's in order to troubleshoot the unit brought me back to the days of NT - even then, many home network appliances had better interfaces than what the Sonos product has to offer today. The product already has a built-in web server. Why not make it look nice, and make it easy to access all of the troubleshooting tools from one interface, or easily found on one interface?

I'm not bashing the product to just put it down. I'm hoping that Sonos matures its offerings with critical feedback received from its customers. The backlash from this community will make it pretty hard to elicit good feedback from customers that are ready and willing to pay for your product, while also offering feedback to help the product grow. 😳

For me, Infrastructure type equipment that lives on a shelf and does whatever it does, should be hard wired and set to a static IP.

They aren't going anywhere and this keeps quite a bit of (limited) throughput off the wifi band.

Done.

Phones, tablets, laptops (i.e. people) come and go on the network, only represent one user worth of throughput and typically prefer to be wireless.

And because the printer, scanner, NAS, SONOS or other device is hard wired, the bit stream goes to the access point antenna and then stays on hard wire to or from its destination instead of being broadcast back out to a wireless device...

Statit IP's 192.168.1.1 through 192.168.1.50 or 192.168.1.200 even for infrastructure, and let the DHCP assign IP addresses after that.

How many darn items can you actually have anyhow...? 50? 100?... 200...!?

Set it and forget it for the stuff that sits there and DHCP for the rest.

Why not add a little extra soho network security is to give your router an exclusive list of MAC addresses??

It is wicked annoying you cant assign a SONOS device its own IP address, though.

Just seems kinda silly to not have that interface.

My SOHO network days only go back to win 95 over BNC and even there they had this in the tcp ip settings....

Almost like you;d have to go out of your wat to not have this feature.

The problem is their architecture doesn't work well on a network that isn't flat. In my case, trying to configure/setup/update/use the SONOS Connect player, regardless of the fact that its primary ethernet interface and its WLAN interface both picked up IP addresses in their respective VLANs, the device's multicast comms couldn't jump from subnet to subnet.

You are wrong. Their multicast traverse at least one router jump, if your router allows it. I have personally gotten Sonos to work in a multi-layered, VLAN separated environment. It's not easy, but if you have that setup, you should be able to figure it out. Sonos cannot traverse VLANs (subnets) unless your equipment allows it. Most don't, by default.

And why would the WLAN interface and the ethernet be active at the same time, on different VLANs? In SonosNet mode, the WLAN interface is only a Sonos exclusive mesh network. In WiFi mode, the ethernet connection should not be used, or be used on the same VLAN as the WiFi, otherwise you get the issue you are referring to (which isn't surprising, at all). Just connect it properly instead.

Hello.

I have 6 sonos Connect:AMP. I have to work with sonos app and with a domotic KNX interface. I need static IP's in all sonos amplifiers to work with KNX. Because of this problem (sonos don't have manual ip configuration) I changed the router and now i have one that allows configuration to set a manual IP to each sonos, but it don't work.

The sonos amplifiers are all in the same place, and the connection is serial for all 6. The cable from the router arrives to the first sonos, and another cable goes from that sonos to another until all 6 sonos are connected. Only the first works with the IP that gives the new router, but for the rest of the amps is not working. I think that when a Sonos is connected directly to another the IP is set automatically before the router assigns the manual IP.

How can I solve this?

Buying another router and changing all the installation?

Or maybe buying another amps?

I have no place for a new router.

I cannot understand why is not allowed to put a manual IP as I can do with any other product. Is a very little thing that is causing a very big problem.

Please, allow manual IP or give an alternate solution.

Thanks.

Hello.

I have 6 sonos Connect:AMP. I have to work with sonos app and with a domotic KNX interface. I need static IP's in all sonos amplifiers to work with KNX. Because of this problem (sonos don't have manual ip configuration) I changed the router and now i have one that allows configuration to set a manual IP to each sonos, but it don't work.

You should just be able to reserve a specific address for each of the Sonos units in your router. So you still use DHCP, but the Sonos units always have a specific IP address.

Hello. That's not true. I assigned manual IP for the six sonos. Only the first amp, the one that goes directly to the router have the correct IP from the router. If I use another amp as first is the same thing, only the first has the correct IP. The rest have automatic IP

Can we abandon this thread please? You should not have double posted in the first place

Hello. That's not true. I assigned manual IP for the six sonos. Only the first amp, the one that goes directly to the router have the correct IP from the router. If I use another amp as first is the same thing, only the first has the correct IP. The rest have automatic IP

Then you probably haven't set it up properly - if you reserve an address under DCHP, it should simply look at the MAC address and allocate whatever you've linked it to. It doesn't matter how it's physically cabled.

Hello. That's not true. I assigned manual IP for the six sonos. Only the first amp, the one that goes directly to the router have the correct IP from the router. If I use another amp as first is the same thing, only the first has the correct IP. The rest have automatic IP

Then you probably haven't set it up properly - if you reserve an address under DCHP, it should simply look at the MAC address and allocate whatever you've linked it to. It doesn't matter how it's physically cabled.Agreed. See also

https://en.community.sonos.com/troubleshooting-228999/sonos-manual-ip-6789500

Hello.

I have 6 sonos Connect:AMP. I have to work with sonos app and with a domotic KNX interface. I need static IP's in all sonos amplifiers to work with KNX. Because of this problem (sonos don't have manual ip configuration) I changed the router and now i have one that allows configuration to set a manual IP to each sonos, but it don't work.

The sonos amplifiers are all in the same place, and the connection is serial for all 6. The cable from the router arrives to the first sonos, and another cable goes from that sonos to another until all 6 sonos are connected. Only the first works with the IP that gives the new router, but for the rest of the amps is not working. I think that when a Sonos is connected directly to another the IP is set automatically before the router assigns the manual IP.

How can I solve this?

Buying another router and changing all the installation?

Or maybe buying another amps?

I have no place for a new router.

I cannot understand why is not allowed to put a manual IP as I can do with any other product. Is a very little thing that is causing a very big problem.

Please, allow manual IP or give an alternate solution.

Thanks.

I think your problem may be less related to the DHCP/Static question and is instead a spanning tree problem. If you have all of them connected to physical ethernet (daisy-chained from the sound of it) it likely they are also connected to the mesh network (usually automatic.) Try connecting *just* one to the physical network, or just a bridge/boost to the physical. Try it with only two turned on: one connected directly to physical, the other just turned on and (hopefully) connected to the mesh network.

Or he could turn the wireless off, so that they don't get confused...

Beynym, are you serious? What you're saying makes no sense on multiple levels. Static IP's hard to maintain? Like how? They need to be watered or fed? Or maybe groomed? Really?

So, you are happy to be restricted on how you could configure your device? I am not. I want to have options to do with it as much as I can. That makes ME happy. To see that the manufacturer took the time to implement good software,not asking me to change everything I have just because they want to protect me from making mistakes.

There is a quick cure against IP conflicts: it's called a list. It could be done the old fashion way,pen&paper, or on a tablet. Why do I even waste my time here? Because you made us stupid ( me and all the others above) for asking for something that SHOULD be there for a device commanding this amount of money. Read some replies from other " argumentative" people above. Maybe you'll educate yourself why we ask for this.

I have no skin in the game, i kept the Bose system. Same price and 5 minutes to configure.

I love my Sonos system at home...so much I bought a play 3 and bridge to put in my office. We use static IP adresses and I don't want to get into one of the three wireless routers in the office and start tinkering. If this is the only sollution, I am boxing up play 3 and bridge and returning to BestBuy. That should be fun.

I use nothing but assigned IP addresses at my home too. However several of the other network devices at home (for example ROKU) do not allow direct IP assignment. For those devices I use Static DHCP (same as address reservations, there is no standard term for it). I have a reliable old Linksys WRT54G router for the home. By default it does not do Static DHCP, so I installed Tomato. Tomato is much more "powerful". It support Static DHCP, and now all my devices have static addresses, directly or through Static DHCP.

Reservations are not the same... not by a longshot. They only help if your router is not designed for a heavy load and can sometimes run out of addresses to hand out. This can happen due to devices coming on and offline such as cell phones. They are leased for 24 hours by default normally even if they are only on for 5 seconds!

Where Static IP can really help is if there are uncontrollable factors in a network, the sonos system can be made to function without the router's help. In the event the router dies, the sonos components continue to talk to one another so that line inputs still work and the control devices can still access them, so the customer doesn't roll a truck to find out they hit reset controller, then rebooted the router (fixing the problem) but still can't get in because instead of rebooting the controller, they reset it, meaning unlearned all sonos components. In this config, the only thing that will fail is internet lookups, which will point them (correctly) at their modem. Once outbound comms are established, static addresses work and IMMEDIATELY you start communicating... not 60 seconds later when sonos decides to poll another address... leading them to say, nope wasn't the modem, lets unplug the router, then the cycle of needlessness continues...

you can get static ip or a dedicated ip by purchasing a vpn tool. this tool will allow you to set ip as per your own choice so you can connect with any country any time. here you can find best vpn for uk

Sign up

Login to the community

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded