Support for SMB v2 or v3

Buying a packaged RF solution avoids much government interaction!

Yes, ran into that when I built a DAQ system that uses a cellular link. Regs around Cellular RF make unlicensed bands look positively tame in comparison. I also suppose that reduces their business risk somewhat - using a known-good reference design. Plus, with the kinds of profit margins they enjoy, paying a small premium for the module is in the noise.

All that said, I also found it very interesting to hear that the SMB3.11 stack is smaller than the SMB1 stack. I hear your your points about code dependencies and so on, but if they're really scrounging for every bit of Flash and RAM as has been implied in all the emails detailing the woes associated with "mini-computer" CPUs, wouldn't one want to upgrade to SMB3.11?

It would have been fun to download the Sonos kernel and try swapping the v2 code for v3 and seeing what the final code sizes were once all the dependencies of the v3 code were met but I'm too old and lazy to think that is much fun today.

You also need to consider just how much of the v2 SMB stack has been dropped from the Sonos code. I'm sure the printer support is gone. 🙂 How much else they dropped I don't know but if they are fighting for code space you can bet they sent in a man with an ax to do the trimming initially and maybe a couple more passes later in search of every last possible reduction.

I have no idea what Sonos is doing internally but if they don't have a team occasionally looking at the issues of moving to a newer kernel and supporting software I'd be surprised. Supporting obsolete kernels and other software is time consuming and folks that can do it well do not work cheap.

I just guess that for compatibility reasons unfortunately the choice would be for Sonos as:
- just support samba 1;
- support samba 3 as well as 1 and 2 for backwards compatibility;
And this will take much more resources than samba 3 alone.
Just guessing...

Just guessing...
Seeing that a Samba team member from MSFT offered to help them implement SMB3 at Sonos, I cannot think of a better resource to make it happen. Given the lack of progress over the last year on this issue, I conclude that it's simply not a priority and it won't be until MSFT and other vendors won't even allow SMB1v1 to be used.

Currently, Sonos can get away with telling their home-hosting content customers to dumb down their network protocol security; that may not be an option in the future. However, the bet in the management suite may simply be that by the time MSFT makes it impossible for Windows users to even turn on SMB1v1 that enough people will accept streaming-only product and hence an update won't even be needed. No more support for a home NAS should open up some Flash / RAM too.

Yeah, they might lose a few customers over this but there is a precedent for that at Sonos now.

Why anyone who has voluntarily frozen their system at 8.4 keeps posting about wanting a future update to support SMB v2 is yet another question for the ages. So which is it, do you want to be able to freeze your system to legacy versions, or install a new version for SMB support? Because you can't have both (unless "getting both" is merely code for getting to complain about both).

One can freeze and sandbox part of their system so as not to be subject to the forced cr100 brickening by Sonos, and have a separate system with units where they get updates and thus wants updates.

Let's keep it friendly everyone, no need to be antagonistic toward anyone.

Some good discussion and speculation here, I can't share many details but we are looking at the SMB integration and ways to make changes for the future. We'll let you know as soon as there's more to say here. SMB is a tricky one, because of how we handle the music index on all players, including our legacy devices that, as Constantin and Stanley were talking about, are extremely limited when it comes to their hardware.

So I finally decided to get a set of Sonos Speakers. My two Play:3's arrived today. I went to set them up. I go to point them to my NAS and it won't connect. I do a little digging. SMBv1!? WTF!!!! Come on Sonos, it's 2018. SMB v2 has been out since 2006, SMB v3 since 2012. This is insane. It is utterly ridiculous that a supposedly premium product is using an ancient insecure version of SMB. I'm not trying to be rude, but this is incredibly disappointing. No, I don't want to stream. I want to play MY music collection from my speakers, without going back and downgrading the security settings on my NAS box. I still haven't heard a blessed thing out of my brand new speakers other than the setup chime.

So add a cheap NAS like the WD Live drives or even cheaper roll your own NAS using a Raspberry Pi and move on.

I'd love to have newer SMB but not at the cost of having to replace my older Sonos Zone Players because they don't have the hardware needed to support it. Look at the unhappiness over the ending of the CR 100 that for most folks was a minor issue.