Question

Bridge only visible on ethernet

  • 10 November 2019
  • 35 replies
  • 283 views


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.

35 replies

As for the suggestion that Sonos was ‘gently pushing us all towards WiFi’, no way. Beyond a certain system size, and certainly for a system that’s well spread out physically, the extensible SonosNet mesh still makes absolute sense.

Despite the popularity of meshed WiFi systems they don’t always play nicely with a Sonos system in WiFi mode. Some offer no control over channel allocations, and Sonos performs best in a group when all the devices are on the same channel and can interconnect directly peer-to-peer.

And here’s me thinking, I was going to increase my text speak vocabulary, to the undoubted amusement of the younger generation!

Haha. 

No danger of anyone learning anything to do with the younger generation from me.

Userlevel 7
Badge +21

I love my Ubiquity gear but while it can be made to work within the Sonos WiFi limitations you are giving up a lot of features. I’d recommend getting the Ubiquity kit but just for your home WiFi, not Sonos use.

Keep an eye on your Bridge power supplies, when they go iffy they can be most frustrating.

I have many Sonos devices (20?) across a large property and several buildings and have only ever used a single Boost, never a Bridge. 
 

I also have strong WiFi signal in every building and across about 10 acres, all with a single SSID.  I use the Linksys Velop mesh system and hardwire all the nodes. 

Badge +3

All,

Having resolved the problem of some of my Bridges not appearing on SonosNet (with thanks to everyone who contributed), I hope I might be allowed a bit of latitude in taking this discussion a bit further.

I started this thread, since I felt I needed to add additional Bridges, in order to try and improve the stability of my SonosNet network.  On the Network Matrix, I invariably had quite a lot of yellow and orange and not that much green.  I tried various configurations with extra Bridges placed at what I considered to be strategic points, but was not seeing much consistent improvement.

In the original set-up, the Boost was the Root Bridge and attached to my router.  The only other Bridge was at the far end of the house, serving mainly Kitchen and Utility, which were usually the problem devices.  For no particular reason I decided to try reversing the positions of the Boost and the Bridge.  Much to my surprise the Network Matrix was almost entirely green, which I had never come close to achieving before.

In spite of this improvement, the Boost was still designated as Root, even though it was now some way away from the router.  I thought I’d better change that situation and make the Bridge now attached to the router, the Root, but when I did so the Network Matrix deteriorated, bringing back a several orange connections.

So my question is: in spite of what appears to be an almost perfect network layout (see attached Matrix print), am I storing up a problem for myself by having the Boost perform as the Root, even though I now believe it to be in effect a tertiary node?

My inclination is to leave things exactly as they are, given the amounts of green I can see, but I would be interested if any of you have a different opinion.

Thanks in advance.

 

 

So Bridge Study is currently the only wired node? In that case making the wireless Boost root is distinctly unorthodox. It’s two hops out from the Bridge, so bandwidth will have to shared across all the multiple hops whenever traffic traverses the mesh. Despite ostensibly better point-to-point signal strengths the overall mesh performance could actually be worse in terms of throughput.

When the Boost was wired (and root) it was almost certainly trying to make more direct connections than the old SonosNet 1.0 Bridge is now capable of. As a result the Boost would have been showing some yellow and orange to the further out nodes. By switching the Bridge into the wired position the weaker Bridge wireless is forcing SonosNet into more, shorter, hops.

I learned some time ago to stop second-guessing SonosNet. So long as the topology isn’t unstable personally I would wire the strongest available node as root (Boost in your case, unless you can somehow wire the Lounge HT player which contains the latest wireless module) and leave SonosNet to figure itself out. If it needs to make multiple hops to reach distant nodes it will. 

 

Badge +3

Thank you Ratty.  Whilst this was not specifically directed at you, I did hope you might reply.

Thank you for the explanation and the advice.  I would, however, like to come back on one point.  I can see that the throughput might be worsened, in spite of the improved point-to-point signals; however, I don’t think we place a particularly high burden on throughput.  There are only two of us and we usually listen to the same thing, albeit in two or three rooms.  We almost never have more than two streams running and even that is not that often.

Under the circumstances, I am inclined to leave things as they are and see if I detect any ill-effects of this particular set-up.  This time last year, I had enormous problems when I introduced the Beam and Sub into the network and was working for several moths with Lvl2.  I ended up with a separate modem and wifi router and even then things were not that stable.  Slowly I have pared it back without disrupting the service and to have the current network display is a real joy.

Primarily, I was getting concerned that the Sonos network along with all the technology in our house (no doubt not that much by many people’s standards) was becoming so complex as to be almost unmanageable except by me.  Of course, maybe the sensible action would be to replace the wired Bridge with another Boost; however, I think I will definitely leave well enough alone for the time being.

 

Thanks again for your input.

I’m not saying it won’t work, hence “unorthodox”.

For some time I was also using a wireless Boost as root in order to force a certain topology. For music the throughput reduction due to the additional hop was not critical, but I was also hanging a WiFi access point off one of the distant nodes. Download speed via that AP was effectively halved by the extra SonosNet hop.

By the way I don’t know what “all the technology” in your house implies, but I run two dual-band AC routers and three 2.4GHz secondary access points. Obviously SonosNet also requires its own 2.4GHz channel, and the Sonos HT players dynamically locate suitable 5GHz channels for themselves. With sensible channel selection it all coexists fine.

So long as your setup doesn’t give you trouble see how it goes. Fingers crossed.

Badge +3

My real problem is wifi access in the house due to its construction, so to hear you say you hung a wifi AP off the end of a Sonos node, is a real shocker.  I did do it in the past, but wouldn’t dare now,  given the reaction you get from Sonos support when they hear that!

Perhaps you also forget, where you stand in the overall Sonos population - I would hazard a guess in the top 0.001% and I have probably underestimated that.  My background is in the software industry and I know enough to be dangerous, but networking was never even remotely my forte.

The household technology is a concern solely from the point of view of being managed by someone with no IT background whatsoever and, perhaps more importantly, little time or inclination to want to delve into it.

So will keep the fingers crossed, as you suggest, and see it how it goes.

 

Userlevel 7
Badge +21

You don’t want to hit an AP hung off a Sonos with a lot of traffic but for getting a connection back to your home WiFi for a Sonos controller it is pretty slick.