Update News

Android Devices no longer able to join SonosNet



Show first post
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.

162 replies


To replicate that I'm going to have to put in multiple network extenders in the same locations my Sonos devices are located. That's not practical, just from the power socket requirements.You could use one of these, configured as an AP, wired to the same Sonos unit as the power socket is feeding.


Hey Ratty, long time! Hope you're well, I'd need a couple I think, assuming they'll bridge from one to another?
Badge
This change, applied by Sonos without any prior notification, gives me a major headache in how to reconfigure my non-Sonos network. As Stanley_4 says, I too would have blocked the update until I had time to consider how to work around this problem now imposed. I do not see any advice from Sonos on how to deal with this situation.
Sonos - please would you comment on how you assessed the impact on your loyal customers? Did you assess the number of customers who used the SonosNet access function? Did you consider the impact and how to provide support to those people?
Frankly, I do not know how to address the problem and clearly it would be helpful to have an advice line that I could call to discuss a resolution. Would you please face up to this issue which you have caused and provide some assistance?
Thank you.


To replicate that I'm going to have to put in multiple network extenders in the same locations my Sonos devices are located. That's not practical, just from the power socket requirements.You could use one of these, configured as an AP, wired to the same Sonos unit as the power socket is feeding.
Hey Ratty, long time! Hope you're well, I'd need a couple I think, assuming they'll bridge from one to another?

You'd configure them as access points, not extenders. Wired to the nearest Sonos unit they'd rely on the SonosNet mesh for connection back to the router. The only difference from the old arrangement is that the access point is external to the Sonos unit, so in fact a side benefit is it would support any WiFi device including iOS controllers etc., not just Androids.

Depending on the house you might be able to start with just one AP, say at the far end, and see how coverage works out.

I have three TP-Link TL-WA850RE (the ones without the power socket) doing just that, in the more remote corners of the house. SonosNet provides the connection.



To replicate that I'm going to have to put in multiple network extenders in the same locations my Sonos devices are located. That's not practical, just from the power socket requirements.You could use one of these, configured as an AP, wired to the same Sonos unit as the power socket is feeding.

I'd need a couple I think, assuming they'll bridge from one to another?
You'd configure them as access points, not extenders. Wired to the nearest Sonos unit they'd rely on the SonosNet mesh for connection back to the router. The only difference from the old arrangement is that the access point is external to the Sonos unit, so in fact a side benefit is it would support any WiFi device including iOS controllers etc., not just Android.

I have three TP-Link TL-WA850RE (the ones without the power socket) doing just that, in the more remote corners of the house. SonosNet provides the connection.


Ah ok, I get it, that could work, thank you.




To replicate that I'm going to have to put in multiple network extenders in the same locations my Sonos devices are located. That's not practical, just from the power socket requirements.You could use one of these, configured as an AP, wired to the same Sonos unit as the power socket is feeding.

I'd need a couple I think, assuming they'll bridge from one to another?
You'd configure them as access points, not extenders. Wired to the nearest Sonos unit they'd rely on the SonosNet mesh for connection back to the router. The only difference from the old arrangement is that the access point is external to the Sonos unit, so in fact a side benefit is it would support any WiFi device including iOS controllers etc., not just Android.

I have three TP-Link TL-WA850RE (the ones without the power socket) doing just that, in the more remote corners of the house. SonosNet provides the connection.
Ah ok, I get it, that could work, thank you.

One small caveat. After installing an access point as described, check your network matrix to make sure the root bridge is where you expect it to be. Sometimes another Sonos node which is 'wired' (albeit to a third party device) will become root. This is fixable.
My son in law occasionally uses an old Airport Express as an access point cabled to his SonosNet linked Play:1 speaker to provide a WiFi connection in his out-building/workshop.. its one of these, which I think he bought cheaply off eBay. Useful to try if you happen to have one lying around the place, perhaps?

My son in law occasionally uses an old Airport Express ... Useful to try if you happen to have one lying around the place, perhaps?
Maybe, but only if you already have one. For heavens sake don't buy one. IME they take an age to boot, are awful to configure, and run ridiculously hot.
One small caveat. After installing an access point as described, check your network matrix to make sure the root bridge is where you expect it to be. Sometimes another Sonos node which is 'wired' (albeit to a third party device) will become root. This is fixable.

Important caveat, that. I found exactly this and had to fix it with help from ratty.
I did not need the access points for Sonos control; my phones were on Wifi, but reading about them here prompted me to change my wireless Airport Express in my bedroom from WiFi extender mode to access point mode after wiring it to the Connect Amp LAN port. Pleasantly surprised to see a noticeably better/consistent browsing experience thereafter, with no adverse impact on Sonos performance. I don't do video streaming; for those that do, there may be a chance of overloading Sonos net this way. But Sonos turned up a hidden benefit for me after many years of use at home, that is quite neat.
  • really annoying that it's gone; like so many people, I relied on the sonosnet for control with my android as wifi is so poor in some parts of the house. I'm going to have to go down the access points route as suggested above by ratty (or would investing in a mesh wifi system be better?)

A separate mesh WiFi would perhaps be overkill, and is not without complexity. One or two access points, wired to nearby Sonos units, may suffice.

  • it would have been nice if Sonos had alerted us to this change. Mine only stopped functioning 10 July 19.

The change came in 10.2 a couple of months back. The SonosNet announcement was made the same day.

  • should I be able to see Sonosnet on my wifi analysis app? I can't.

No. It could have been intermittently visible before, when Android attachment was an option, but you shouldn't see it now.
Badge
Thank you for the suggestions - very much appreciated. Can anyone from Sonos comment on the proposed solution to add an access point please? Is this a valid solution and are there any plans to remove this functionality?
Has anyone any experience of TP-Link TL-WA860RE N300 Universal Range Extender?
Thank you.
This change is crap!!! The option to connect to sonosnet was really handy!
Userlevel 1
Badge +2
One small caveat. After installing an access point as described, check your network matrix to make sure the root bridge is where you expect it to be. Sometimes another Sonos node which is 'wired' (albeit to a third party device) will become root. This is fixable.
Important caveat, that. I found exactly this and had to fix it with help from ratty.
I did not need the access points for Sonos control; my phones were on Wifi, but reading about them here prompted me to change my wireless Airport Express in my bedroom from WiFi extender mode to access point mode after wiring it to the Connect Amp LAN port. Pleasantly surprised to see a noticeably better/consistent browsing experience thereafter, with no adverse impact on Sonos performance. I don't do video streaming; for those that do, there may be a chance of overloading Sonos net this way. But Sonos turned up a hidden benefit for me after many years of use at home, that is quite neat.


I've put an access point in the worst affected area in our house now. Not convinced that this is going to be reliable without sonosnet - I'm partially back to the bad old days of being often unable to browse music, or unable to connect.
I attach my current matrix. The boost is showing as a tertiary node. Is this right?
Can anyone advise, please?

With so many units are you not able to connect any one to the router and set up Sonos net - which is necessary for the access point solution as a replacement for the android, which, if you note, was a connection to Sonos net.
Userlevel 1
Badge +2
With so many units are you not able to connect any one to the router and set up Sonos net - which is necessary for the access point solution as a replacement for the android, which, if you note, was a connection to Sonos net.

Hi, thanks for the reply.
The Boost is connected to the router. Are you saying I need to disconnect everything else except the boost, then restart the Boost (power cycle), then add everything else in? The Access point is connected to the Dining Room connect:amp via ethernet cable.

thanks
D
@revdv Something may have been messed up. Click on the Boost in your /support/review, then '/usr/sbin/brctl showstp br0'. What does it show against 'designated root'?
Are you saying I need to
Since ratty is here, I suggest you take his advice - he knows this subject a lot better.
Userlevel 1
Badge +2
@revdv Something may have been messed up. Click on the Boost in your /support/review, then '/usr/sbin/brctl showstp br0'. What does it show against 'designated root'?

Thanks ratty
Here it is

Boost (RINCON_7828CA7268A401400)

Zone Player Info
Ethernet Ports
/VERSION
/proc/ath_rincon/status
/sbin/ifconfig
/usr/sbin/brctl showstp br0
code:
running /usr/sbin/brctl showstp br0
br0
bridge id 8f00.7828ca7268a4
designated root 8000.10da438566f8
root port 4 path cost 336
max age 20.00 bridge max age 6.00
hello time 2.00 bridge hello time 1.00
forward delay 15.00 bridge forward delay 4.00
ageing time 60.00 gc interval 0.00
hello timer 0.00 tcn timer 0.00
topology change timer 0.00 gc timer 1.70
flags


eth0 (1)
port id 8001 state forwarding
designated root 8000.10da438566f8 path cost 10
designated bridge 8f00.7828ca7268a4 message age timer 0.00
designated port 8001 forward delay timer 0.00
designated cost 336 hold timer 0.35
flags

ath0 (2) - tunnel to B8:E9:37:82:88:AD (remote STP state = forwarding, direct = 3)
port id 8002 state blocking
designated root 8000.10da438566f8 path cost 250
designated bridge 9800.b8e9378288ac message age timer 19.42
designated port 8002 forward delay timer 0.00
designated cost 317 hold timer 0.00
flags

ath0 (3) - tunnel to 00:0E:58:80:32:33 (remote STP state = forwarding, direct = 3)
port id 8003 state blocking
designated root 8000.10da438566f8 path cost 288
designated bridge 9800.000e58803232 message age timer 19.42
designated port 8005 forward delay timer 0.00
designated cost 260 hold timer 0.00
flags

ath0 (4) - tunnel to 00:0E:58:DE:62:99 (remote STP state = forwarding, direct = 1)
port id 8004 state forwarding
designated root 8000.10da438566f8 path cost 326
designated bridge 9000.000e58de6298 message age timer 19.42
designated port 8003 forward delay timer 0.00
designated cost 10 hold timer 0.00
flags

ath0 (5) - tunnel to 00:0E:58:26:CE:E9 (remote STP state = forwarding, direct = 3)
port id 8005 state forwarding
designated root 8000.10da438566f8 path cost 269
designated bridge 8f00.7828ca7268a4 message age timer 0.00
designated port 8005 forward delay timer 0.00
designated cost 336 hold timer 0.35
flags
Userlevel 1
Badge +2
The Netgear box you connected to the Dining Room player is STP-enabled and has become root bridge, messing up the topology. I'm send a PM.
thanks
This is a pain.... Whatever slag heap they got the dust to make the blocks that are used to build the internal walls of my house kill WiFi signal, it just gets through 1 wall but if its 2 walls then there is no chance of seeing it. So all of the speaker in the 3 bedrooms were controlled via android phones that lined to SonosNet. I have also had to add in an extra bridge in the house just to give me only 1 wall between each sonos devices so it can build its mesh. So for me its not just one plug its one for every room other than the room with the router. I already have an upgraded router with a stronger signal.
Badge +1
I spoke with tech support today and was told Sonos was worried that using their speakers as hotspots would somehow destroy the speakers. And, he reminded me, this would create warranty issues. I did not make this up.
Userlevel 7
Badge +26
@scrannel, thanks for sharing. I'm going to look into that call on our end, but it seems you weren't given accurate info. The reasons for this don't include preventing wireless traffic from damaging players.
Badge +1
Don't worry about it. Otherwise the tech was very polite and I have no complaints.
I would personally just keep the SSID and channel number the same as the main WiFi, for ease of use. The connection will get routed back over SonosNet doing it that way.


Ken, do the two sentences need a para to separate them - would the connection not get routed back over Sonos net no matter the naming protocol and the channel selection for the access point?

As to channel selection, a follow up; While Sonosnet and Wifi are best kept on separate channels, is there any such recommendation for the channels to be set for the access point and the main router? Does it even matter, given the distance of the access point from the main router?
A small digression for clarification, based on a copy/paste from:
https://en.community.sonos.com/controllers-software-228995/use-sonosnet-as-wifi-repeater-mesh-for-laptops-tablets-mobile-devices-5804059

"SonosNet is independent from WiFi. However networks can be extended over SonosNet, by plugging third party devices into the remote Ethernet ports.

The Sonos unit wired to your router could communicate over SonosNet with your PLAY:5. When you wired the PLAY:5 to the AP a loop developed, because it could also communicate via the AP.

If the AP was wired back to the router Sonos would generally have resolved the situation itself, blocking its SonosNet connection and breaking the loop."

The second para confuses me: When one unit is wired to the router, all Sonos units communicate via Sonosnet, as I understand. How would the above loop get created then, how would the root bridge unit or the Play 5 also communicate via the AP?

And if so, what is the solution? Wiring the AP back to the router doesn't make sense, defeating the use of a remote Sonos ethernet port to avoid just this.
would the connection not get routed back over Sonos net no matter the naming protocol and the channel selection for the access point?
Correct.

As to channel selection, a follow up; While Sonosnet and Wifi are best kept on separate channels, is there any such recommendation for the channels to be set for the access point and the main router? Does it even matter, given the distance of the access point from the main router?

YMMV. If they're on the same channel and within earshot of each other they'll simply share the channel cooperatively. Given that the AP's throughput would be throttled by SonosNet anyway this is unlikely to be an issue.