Password to avoid guests changing music

You'd actually want to do it the other way round, with guests using the existing router and Sonos moved to the private side of router 2. Devices on the inner network can still access devices on the main network (so long as they can determine the destination address), but not vice versa.

Although I understand your reasoning, this is not a good approach either. The best route would be to wire both to a WAN connection (if you get at least two IPs from your ISP), however that is not always the case.

But having double NAT for your internal network will surely cause other problems.

Sonos would be filtered in both scenarios because discovery would fail. You could possibly even add a static route for the "other" internal network that routes no where, to be sure. Either way, a router with guest network possibilities is really the best alternative.

I know ratty that you are aware of this, just thought that people reading this thread becomes aware of that 🙂

You'd actually want to do it the other way round, with guests using the existing router and Sonos moved to the private side of router 2. Devices on the inner network can still access devices on the main network (so long as they can determine the destination address), but not vice versa.

I understand what you're saying but in the context of the current discussion I can confirm that the Sonos connection will not work (as jishi says). I have this setup in my own house (in addition to a guest network). I use it to enable me set up new Sonos systems without inadvertently making them part of my own. I used to go and turn off my bridge to set up a new system, now I just put the new bridge behind a second router and have not had a problem. In addition, I've occasionally left my controller linked to the wireless of the second router and tried to relink to my own Sonos system and it does not work until I move to the 1st router.

Because of the Double NAT issue I wouldn't encourage anyone to put their Sonos and their main home network behind the second router, but I don't worry too much about putting guests there.

For security against actual malice as I said I'd always recommend a guest network with full wireless isolation. But as a $20 means of keeping my guests from messing with the Sonos system, I'd still stand by this.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. Obviously discovery wouldn't work between the outer and inner LANs, because controllers and players would be on either side of the second router.

But as for running a Sonos entirely on the inner LAN, including all the controllers, well of course it will work. Yes, it's double-NATed but Sonos doesn't know or care. That's precisely how I run my main Sonos household, behind a WRT54GL running Tomato. (I have other reasons to do so; security was actually secondary.)

The Sonos is perfectly happy to connect to addresses on the Internet or the outer LAN. Moreover the Players don't pop up as UPnP devices on the computers of visitors who attach to the main router.

I can't believe that people think this issue is best solved by password protecting all devices. All the guests (in my case, hundreds who come to events) have access to the wifi, and therefore to the sonos. A guest login to the router is an excellent suggestion (not quite as good as password protecting access to sonos zones, but still), but telling a poster to stop her daughter letting her friends use her computer is the most ridiculous answer to a tech request I've ever heard.

Password is a must in 2016
I live in a condo where we share internet , between condos.
Sonos is a pain as i cannot control my neighbour, neighbour guest behaviour.

Make it simple as airplay.
All apple airplay device have password protection.
To add a sonos device in the sonos app you should be ask a password it is ridiculous that there is no way to protect intrusion.

Guess WiFi is a stupid suggestion. should not have to block file sharing to block access to my sound system.
i have phillips hue light and controller must be hand pushed to be added to app. My neighbour doesn't have access to my light.
But he as access to my sound system....

Never mind Sonos, I'm surprised you'd be happy letting neighbours poke around in any of your network devices. Buy a small router and set up your own private network. If you don't have access to a wired network connection you can obtain WiFi-as-WAN routers.

Or a responsible company will listen to their customer needs and wants and react accordingly. Putting the responsibility on the user is ridiculous. It's a very simple thing to implement. Or implement it on the front end. That you need to enter a PIN number on the first time you install the speaker on the app. After that all speakers in that connection are enabled

Never mind Sonos, I'm surprised you'd be happy letting neighbours poke around in any of your network devices. Buy a small router and set up your own private network. If you don't have access to a wired network connection you can obtain WiFi-as-WAN routers.

I would not double NAT a network just for the sake of it!
Gaming and server wise its not acceptable....
I am a Network technician, and i set up multiple smart device and this is the only device in this price range that as no basic, nada protection. All my Network device have encryption. and i have no neighbour who's an hacker with the skill to hack my network . So even if they see it they can't do squat!
They can not access my phillips light without physically pressing the device module button (so they must come in my house first)
i have a Ring Doorbell (it's encrypted)
i have phillips hue all over the place (it's encrypted)
i Have multiple Camera (all password protected and encrypted)
i have a iSmart Alarm as house security (password protected and encrypted)
I have multiple Apple TV (password protected)
I have airplay Airport Express hooked to sound systems (password protected)
I have an August Lock for my door.
An we all have Mac's with no sharing activated, and password protected.
All these device are protected and my neighbour or guest can't access nothing with only there phone.
But than there is Sonos;
I equipped myself with two Play 1 and two Play 3 and an Sonos AMP. Bummer ! a guest at my neighbours house could start my sound systems in the middle of the night!

We share internet because we have a 200 Mbps connection with up speed of 60Mbps. for 40$ a month each.
Investing into a subnet manageable gigabyte Router is ridiculous.

Sonos at the price there are selling this gadget should offer minimal protection.
the simple action of pressing a button on the speaker or device will pairing with remote app. would be very easy to implement.
The same process as in stereo pairing of two speakers.

I was going to equipped my son with two Play 1 for is room he share's a big house with multiple roommate.
This is not a viable situation With Sonos equipment.

Sorry for any spelling error English is not my first language.

Sonos controllers used to insist that buttons be pressed on a hardware unit in order to associate with the system. For ease of use Sonos changed things such that, if there's only one system ('household') on the network, a new controller will automatically detect it and associate. However if there's more than one household the controller will still request a button push to identify the correct one.

Get another Sonos device -- a BRIDGE would suffice, which can be had for very little money off eBay -- and set it up as a 'new system'. This will create another household ID. Anyone on the same subnet wanting to illicitly associate a controller would then need physical access to your property to press buttons on a Sonos device.

Sonos at the price there are selling this gadget should offer minimal protection.
the simple action of pressing a button on the speaker or device will pairing with remote app. would be very easy to implement.
The same process as in stereo pairing of two speakers.

I was going to equipped my son with two Play 1 for is room he share's a big house with multiple roommate.
This is not a viable situation With Sonos equipment.

When you pair a Sonos controller with a reset Sonos component they create what we call a household ID, a unique key to that Sonos pairing. When you go to connect future controllers to the network, they'll scan to see if there are any existing households on the network. If more than one household is detected you'll get asked to press the play/pause and plus button or the connect button on the household you want to pair with.

If your neighbor had a Sonos setup separate from yours, it very well would solve your trouble. You could also just have a BRIDGE or other Sonos device connected to the network with a different household ID as well. Any new controllers on the network would need to have buttons pressed in order to connect.

It's generally safer and better to have a vLAN setup or a double NAT in this sort of situation just to keep things cleaner. It's safer for everyone involved. Even is your neighbor doesn't know how to break some encryption you never know who he invites over to his house, or who he gives access to the wifi on. Besides, for devices using UPnP or DLNA you won't see results not in your home.