More Control over network settings

  • 29 November 2009
  • 59 replies
  • 19040 views

Userlevel 2
I would like to see the option add to the desktop controller software to be able to modify the network settings of the ZonePlayers.

For example - specify which ZPs use wired connections, which uses wireless and which uses both.

And maybe even the option to specify a static IP address and default gateway.

thanks
Steve

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.

59 replies

For what purpose?

Cheers,

Keith
Userlevel 2
Badge +1
I have to say that I would like to see the option for setting a fixed IP address in the Sonos range.

All of the devices on my network apart from the portable devices such as laptops/netbook/iPhone etc. have been allocated a static IP address.

Yes I know you are sometimes able to bind an IP address to a MAC address but this option is not available in all routers and I like to have the choice!

I guess I have more networked gear than the 'average' home user and so I like to plan/implement my own network topology and the option to assign a static IP address would be ideal.

Obviously not an oft-requested feature but one that would suit me never the less.

-=Glyn=-
I have an extensive network in my home too, as it's also part of my work.

I have (at last count) 6 managed GigE switches, two NAS boxes, three print servers, and a main server plus a couple of dozen client devices (wired and wireless) spread over a number of different VLANs and connected via a multiport firewall.

How many of these device have manually configured IP addresses?

Two: the firewall and the server

The rest have (variously) static and pool-based IP address which are assigned by DHCP. The only reason my server doesn't use DHCP is because it IS the DHCP server.

With a decent DHCP server, hard-configured IP addresses simply aren't required for this sort of setup (and certainly not for something like Sonos). If you are as anal-retentive as me you may want to statically assign IP addresses to devices, but that's all possible via DHCP and a lot easier to manage that visiting each device and manually configuring it.

Seriously, if you have that much of a complex network that you are finding the router DHCP server to be poor, then you may want to consider getting something better, or perhaps running DHCPD on a server somewhere. Hard configured IP addresses are a band-aid. DHCP is the correct solution for this sort of network.

I'll mention my lab also has three cisco routers interconnected via ATM, two cisco LAN switches and two servers. Most of this has hard configured IP addresses, but only because it's emulating distributed service provider environments where DHCP is not applicable.

Even in this case where I can (for instance, the servers) I will assign addresses via DHCP. In this case I'm using proxy DHCP through my firewall, but this is far from your typical setup. I could also have got the firewall to do the DHCP, but the server gives me more control and better integration with DNS.

Cheers,

Keith

Majik I guess you aren't the IT guy at my office because our network is all static. What? Yeah I brought a zone in to show off, didn't work, I wish I had an S5 for my office, I have been debating getting a 3G hub just for the music at work.


The root cause there is your IT guy.

Not using DHCP in an office environment is making work for yourself. It's crazy. There's no sensible reason to do it.

Are you sure they're not using DHCP with locked down static assignments, which would appear to behave the same?

I worked in IT support long before DHCP was readily available and, believe me manually configuring IP addresses (and the associated subnets, etc.) into devices is a support nightmare, as well as a management nightmare. When we introduced DHCP capable routers, our support calls more than halved. It was easily our number one support problem.

As I said, in an office or home environment, manually configuring IP addresses is almost always a band-aid to cover up some other problem, such as a buggy router.

I simply don't buy the "for advanced users" argument. An advanced user (i.e. one that really understood what they were doing) wouldn't want to manually configure the IP addresses. They would want to fix the root cause.

For the record Sonos is the only networked device I own that does not have the ability to assign a static IP.


I have no idea if I have any other devices like this, simply because it's an option I don't look for as it's one that shouldn't need to be used in most cases. In fact, I actually look for the opposite: when I purchase a device I make sure it's compatible with modern networking practices and standards, including support for DHCP. If it doesn't support DHCP then it's a device from the dark ages of networking, and has no place on my network.

Cheers,

Keith
Not for me.

I'm with Majik, static IP's would open a BIG can of worms.
Yes it is static.

What I meant is, is it:

a) statically assigned and manually configured on each device, or

b) statically assigned and provided via DHCP

??

There's nothing wrong with using static IP address assignments. It's done all the time, and most of the IP addresses on my network are fixed in this way, but b) is the way to do it. Any IT manager who uses a) should be looking for a new career (or at least a big beating with the clue-stick).

If it's b), as it is more likely to be, then you can simply ask your IT manager to give you a static assignment for each of the Sonos devices. You'll have to give him the MAC address, which is actually part of the serial number of the device, and is printed on the bottom of the S5.

Cheers,

Keith
It strikes me that allowing a user to configure a static IP into a ZP over-the-air risks them accidentally knocking it out of the local subnet, and thus pulling up the drawbridge. Presumably it would then have to rescued by wiring to a PC with a manually configured IP. Not nice at all from a support point of view. 😞
It strikes me that allowing a user to configure a static IP into a ZP over-the-air risks them accidentally knocking it out of the local subnet, and thus pulling up the drawbridge. Presumably it would then have to rescued by wiring to a PC with a manually configured IP. Not nice at all from a support point of view. :(


Believe me this is a VERY common problem even amongst seasoned IT professionals.

Most devices have some sort of screen and user interface where you can enter IP addresses and correct this sort of problem. Zoneplayers do not.

Other devices which don't are usually network devices like (consumer) routers, switches, access points, nas devices and print servers. These tend to have some sort of web GUI anyway, as this is required for other functions of the system, but most of these devices default to the sensible option: DHCP.

Routers tend to be the easiest to support. As they usually are the DHCP server, they definitely need the IP address manaually configured, but most people operate them on their default subnet and don't need to mess with the settings. Even those that do change the subnet are normally sensible enough to use DHCP and the DHCP server then sends out addresses in the new range. Job done.

Other devices can be very problematic if you start manually setting their IP address. If you get into the web/telnet gui and make an incorrect static IP address config, then you are locked out of the device. There are ways in for us geeks, but 99.99% of people will be screwed at this point and it will be a support call to fix. Worst still is it works, but DHCP is still in use and you end up with a mixture of manual configuration and DHCP on overlapping ranges, which can show up as intermittent problems which are VERY difficult to track down.

Of course, someone will raise the argument that non-geeks shouldn't use this, but the reaility is way different. If someone is having a problem, some muppet is bound to say "have you tried putting in a fixed IP address", and then suddenly their network is an order of magnitude more complex and the support can of worms is open.

The only people who should be allowed to use manual IP configurations on this sort of kit are people who know enough to know that they shouldn't be using it. If you think you need it, you are not one of those people! ;)

Cheers,

Keith

This is another one of your classic posts, it made me LOL. Keep it up, I come back to the forums just to read your latest ordinance.


Feel free to dismiss it, but I did a quick poll of the IT professionals I worked with. They all said I was 100% correct.

There's a huge gulf between understanding how the technology works, and knowing the correct/sensible/responsible way to use it. IT has been dumbed down to the point that a lot of people understand it and know how to use it. That doesn't mean they know how they should use it.

Cheers,

Keith
Knock it off, patriarchal attitude is nothing compared to condescending BS to cover up an ineffective argument. Keith gives his opinion as a expert in the field, and all you come back with are complaints about his posting style?

Typical of this forum at times. :rolleyes:

You've presented your opinion on static network settings as though it is an irrefutable fact. Majik knows best, end of discussion.


No, it's the opinion of the industry. The industry knows best. It's the opinion of every competent network/IT person I have ever met, and I have worked with an awful lot of them.

There are very good reasons to not support anything except DHCP for this sort of network, reasons which significantly outweigh any "would be nice to have" type arguments.

You may think I'm being opinionated on this one, but I'm really passing on what is considered to be best practice all over the IT world.

Quite frankly, if my IT manager used manually configured IP addresses on my office network, I would sack him for being incompetent. There is a basic level of competence needed to be considered fit to manage an office network. It's not very high, but this would fall well below it. It's networking 101.

Have you actually asked your IT manager if they configure the IP addresses manually? I would bet dollars to doughnuts they don't. It's far more likely they are statically configured DHCP addresses, and that your reason for wanting this never existed.

My posting style is what it is because I am used to having to work like this in my professional life. I have learned that being gentle doesn't work. People either ignore what you say or misunderstand, often deliberately, or try to argue the toss on a subject they have little knowledge or expertise in. Often there are vested interests which conflict with the realities of the technology, so they try to argue that the technology can be bent to fit a square peg into a round hole, or ignore the technical issues and leave someone else to clear up the mess.

For instance, I once had to lab test a piece of equipment which we were considering using as our main network device. We would have purchased hundreds of these things and the cost would have been millions of dollars. The CEO was hell-bent on doing the deal. When I tested the device, it was dreadful. When I reported this back it went on deaf ears (things like "we can get them to fix it", were said). In the final report, I ended up putting the following in the executive summary: "IF WE SELECT THIS VENDOR AS OUR EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER WE WILL BE OUT OF BUSINESS WITHIN 6 MONTHS". It was the only way to get past the pig-headed, preconceived views of people who really didn't understand or want to understand. I'm glad to say it worked. I got a lot of flak for it (mainly from people who had vested interests), but they didn't buy that vendor's kit.

Your responses merely re-enforce to me why my posting style is the right one!

Cheers,

Keith
By Keith do you mean Majik? I am not on first name basis with Majik. :rolleyes:


Considering he signs every post with "Keith", it's not too hard to discern his first name.


I am sure he is an expert in the field, just as you are in yours and I am in mine. His posting style is all his own, like I said it keeps me coming back to read the forums to see what new ordinance he may have passed.


If your field is to to write condescending BS in place of a logical argument, then you are indeed an expert. Kudos!


It would be nice if Sonos had some simple user configurable network settings. Sonos is the only IP enabled device I own that does not have this.


It would be nice if I had a Ferrari in my driveway and a solid gold commode in my bath, but I'm afraid it's just not in the cards.
I have a friend who sets up moderate sized networks in radio and TV stations and thinks that real networking guys always use static addresses. It is all grumbles when I show up with SONOS for a "show and tell". As a "courtesy" he will turn on a DHCP server for my SONOS gear. He would not purchase SONOS simply because it does not allow fixed IP addresses. (and he is the type who would rather patch together his own music players rather than purchase something commercial)

Even though I use DHCP, I will assign a fixed IP address to a surly device that cannot seem to cooperate with the DHCP server, but this is rare. My friend burns an amazing amount of his and his customers' time policing his networks, while I simply plug and play.
I have a friend who sets up moderate sized networks in radio and TV stations and thinks that real networking guys always use static addresses.

I don't need to tell you he's dead wrong!

"Real" networking guys will strive to build a system that scales, is stable, easy to monitor and managed. Manual IP address configuration has the opposite effect to this.

I'm pleased to say I don't know anyone who would choose to use manual IP configuration in this sort of network if they had the option of DHCP, and I have had the pleasure of working with some of the best networking people in the world. One guy I know was one of the first people in Europe to get the full CCIE (including labs). I've worked with people who set up and run networks for major ISPs including Demon Internet, Easynet, COLT, Cable and Wireless and Teleglobe, and people who are major players in organisations like LINX and NANOG.

He could try to suggest these people aren't "real networking guys" if he wants. :rolleyes:

Cheers,

Keith

You seem to believe this thread is a debate about whether static or DHCP is best.


No, it's a debate over whether it is sensible for Sonos to introduce a facility that only makes sense for a tiny minority of users.

I guarantee you that however they tried to spin it, supporting manual IP address configuration would cause increased customer problems and increased support cases. The number of people for whom it genuinely solved a problem would be insignificant compared to the number of people who would use it for the wrong reason and break something.

Similar to this, I would personally really find it beneficial if Sonos supported VLANs. I use VLANs extensively in my network and I have had had to do a few little hacks to allow Sonos to work fully on my my network. I am, however, under no pretence that this is a facility that is useful to any but a negligible number of users and which could easily confuse many others. Despite the potential benefits to myself, looking at it more broadly at the community of Sonos users, I see very few benefits and some significant downsides to VLAN support. I doubt I would support this as a feature request either. I would not wish it on other users simply to satisfy my own peculiar desires.

The problem is your opinion is not helpful to anyone who needs to use static because: 1. They do not have control over the network they are using.


Have you considered there's a good reason for this. The only reason you wouldn't have this sort of control is because it's not your network. The chances are your IT department doesn't want people plugging random devices into their network.

In particular they probably don't want people who think they understand what they are doing, but really don't, manually configuring IP addresses onto devices in order to circumvent the IT department's control.

Personally I don't think it's reasonable to expect Sonos to support a facility based on this "requirement".

The chances are if you could put a device with a manually configured IP address on their network it could overlap with their DHCP range (which I suspect they do have) and you end up with sporadic duplicate IP addresses.

2. They need to use static for some reason, such as when you own a device that does not operate well under DHCP as both Buzz and I have brought up.


Personally I have not come across any modern devices which don't work well with DHCP addressing. I have heard of some which prefer a statically assigned DHCP address (i.e. don;t like their address changing), and I have heard of routers which have poor DHCP servers.

For the former, it is normally enough to do static DHCP assignment. Even if not, it is possible to run both manually configured and DHCP on the same network if you really have to. The two are not mutually exclusive. Having one device on your network that "has to" be manually configured doesn't mean you cannot continue using DHCP for the rest of them. This is not a good argument for needing manual configured addresses.

For the latter there is ALWAYS the ability to replace the DHCP part (either with a better router or an adjunct DHCP server). Again, a broken DHCP server isn't a good reason to require manual IP address configuration. The requirement there is a better DHCP server.

In fact if you really want to hack into your office IT network, one way to do it would be to run a local DHCP server on your laptop to assign an address for Sonos. This is no more or less sensible than putting a random manually configured device onto their network. And, no, I am not recommending you should do this!

BOTTOM LINE: No-one "needs" to use manually configured addresses on Sonos. They may choose to, or it may be slightly helpful in some situations, but noone "needs" to.


You can claim industry standard is DHCP. However, Sonos is the ONLY networked device I own without the option for static setting and I bet it is for you too. How about that industry standard?


I'm not saying it was standard to not provide a manual configuration capability. I'm saying it's industry standard practice to not use it for this sort of environment, for good reasons. The fact that devices still have manually configured addresses is a hangover from the days when this was the only way to configure them.

Put it another way:

* Sonos is one of the few non-PC devices on my network which supports online firmware updates (the others are my PS3 and my NAS). Every other device I have I have to manually download the firmware image and install it.

* Sonos is the only device I know which will perform network-wide firmware updates

* Sonos is the only system I know that supports online diagnostic submission

* Sonos is one of the few devices I know that enforces a full Plug'n'play environment (including no manual IP config)

You could argue that any of these aren't "standard" (if your definition of "standard" is "commonplace") but they are all there for good reasons, the main one being it makes it possible for Sonos to offer the quality of support they do.

Having manually configurable IP addresses may be commonplace on devices, but that doesn't mean it's, needed, commonly used, or even a sensible option.

I have no problem with people suggesting that this would be handy for them, but a bit of analysis shows there are very few good reasons to support it in reality (I have yet to hear a compelling one). I cannot think of a single scenario that cannot be resolved unless there is manual IP address configuration on Sonos. On the other hand there are very good reasons for it not to be supported.

My main concern is for the community of Sonos customers out there who would, IMO (based on experience of running an ISP support function where we had to deal with exactly this sort of issue) be negatively impacted if this sort of capability was introduced, and it would benefit a negligible number of users in return.

Like I said Majik knows best end of story.


I have given you my arguments against this which are based on some considerable networking and network/service support experience. You can listen to them or you can chose to ignore them...

...but please don't try to dismiss them as some sort of arrogance on my behalf when you don't seem to have even acknowledged that they may be true, and that my experience may be highly relevant, especially when you don't seem to have the benefit of any significant knowledge or experience in this subject yourself. Personally I consider that arrogant.

Keith
OK, glad you clued in and have agreed that this option would actually make sense for some users.

Every option Sonos introduces is usually only good for a subset of users. Take iHeartradio, Pandora, Rhapsody, Napster, Sirius totally useless for me due to geoblocking.


There's a huge difference between these features, which benefit a significant number of usres, and something which would only be a true benefit to a tiny minority, a point you seem to be deftly avoiding.

Heck Sonos could bolt a toaster oven onto the next model of ZP and I'm certain it would benefit someone. That doesn't make it sensible.


This is why I suggested in a previous post that these settings not be present by default. (static option only if no DHCP server was present on the network). Maybe it is a secret unlock code on the controller just like in old video games.


And what qualifications would one need in order to be allowed to use this secret code?

And, just like video games, secret codes don't tend to be secret for long. T'Internet sees to that.

You are making assumptions on which you have no information, totally unnecessary and basically meaningless to the discussion at hand.

...and...

Again you are making assumptions with zero information, totally unnecessary.


TRANSLATION: I called you on your BS.

This is totally necessary because YOU raised it as a supposedly good case where manual IP address configuration was required. Now when I point out it's a bad case and is not a good reason at all, you try to say it's not necessary to point out the gaping flaws in it.

Much as you might try to wish it away, it is totally meaningful and completely relevant to the subject.

The reality is if the IT department for your office network had been both competent and willing they would have provided you with a way to connect your ZP to the network. The fact that you couldn't is more indicative of the fact they probably don't want you to than anything else.

I have no reason to believe they aren't using DHCP on your office network. I did ask you for clarification but you haven't provided an answer. I'm guessing either because the answer you got doesn't help your argument, or that you've not asked and are making your own assumptions about what your IT department do.

The reason I can make this assumption is because I have knowledge on my side: I worked for ISPs who sold services across the UK to Enterprise users. From my experience I would say that less than 1 user in 10,000 doesn't use DHCP on their network. These are overwhelming odds.

Of course, you would dismiss this as irrelevant!

It takes effort to turn off DHCP and still manage a network effectively, and there aren't any meaningful benefits to doing it. That's why IT departments simply don't do it. You will get the occasional wannabe network engineer who think it's "hardcore" to use manually configured addresses, but most people aren't that masochistic.

So whilst I don't know exactly what your company are doing, without explicit evidence to the contrary, it's a pretty safe bet to assume they are using DHCP.

This is how I dealt with things at my house, both static and DHCP. To your point about static DHCP assignment, you should know that the device still has to request the IP info from the server if in static DHCP, so for some devices this will not solve the DHCP issue. I have no desire to set up everything on my network as static.


As I said you don't have to. You can mix static, dynamic, and (if you have to) manually configured IP addresses on the same network. There's absolutely nothing that says it has to be all one or the other. That's a constraint you're making up in your head.

The constraint doesn't exist and, without it, your argument goes away.

Static would be helpful in my situation and as you clearly stated in your beginning sentence it would be helpful for some people.


I think the words I used are "tiny minority" and "insignificant".

I agree with you in that it isn't likely for Sonos to support this any time soon - if ever. The easiest solution for me is to just buy another product, I am getting tired of my iPod dock. Any suggestions?


Is this meant to be of some kind of a threat?

If you seriously are looking to replace Sonos with something else because of a lack of manually configurable IP addresses, then that's up to you but I'm not going to help you make a dumb decision by suggesting lesser alternatives.

I'm sure there will be people who would replace Sonos for something else because of the lack of a toaster-oven capability too.

Really? Pretty much everything I own also supports this . My HT receiver, blue ray player, XBox, I can update apps on my iDevices without a computer, TV and probably others I can't think of.

Are you suggesting that with a static setting this would be broken?

Are you suggesting that with a static setting this would be broken?

Are you suggesting that with a static setting this would be broken?


The only thing broken here is the record...

I'm saying (as I'm sure you know, because I actually said it) is that just because other network devices follow a pattern, that doesn't make that pattern the right thing. Sonos has plenty of capabilities that are not commonplace on network devices. That's because it's core to the operation of the system. They put some thought into it and not just bolted networking onto it as an add-on.

Supporting a capability that probably less than 0.1% of users actually use (and that nobody actually needs) simply doesn't make sense.

Every new option, device, music service etc introduces potential new support issues for sonos, part of doing business.


... and introduces a significant benefit to users (and, presumably to Sonos in sales).

Manual IP address configuration doesn't!

Actually you do seem to have a bit of a problem with me suggesting that this would be useful to me as this thread shows, reread your statements.


I haven't any problem saying it would be handy for you (just as VPNs would be handy for me) although, as I have pointed out, it's certainly a "nice to have" and not essential for you. You could resolve any issues you have in better ways if you really wanted.

The only problem I have is with your arguing that it's a significant, important and useful feature, and even that it's essential and a massive oversight for Sonos not to provide this capability. It's none of these. Your arguments for this simply have not stood up to any scrutiny and have been mostly based on assumptions, tenuous associations, contrived situations, selective quoting, changing arguments and syntactical trickery rather than addressing the point.

Thank you for your concern big brother. Do you, work for sonos, why all the worry?


As a long time user and community member, I have a vested interest in the platform. many of the other people on this forum are the same. There are definitely many features the community wants and which make sense and which would benefit the rest of the community. This really isn't one of them. Neither is the toaster oven.

I will say that, however much you try to dismiss it, my experience tells me a lot that is important and relevant regarding this subject. I'm happy to share some of this knowledge with the community. Unfortunately with any community there will be people who think they know better and who refuse to listen to expert advice and knowledge on the subject, and who will argue the toss to get their own way in the face of overwhelming evidence.

And you have the cheek to suggest I'm the one being the troll here!

Keith
Userlevel 2

I have no reason to believe they aren't using DHCP on your office network. I did ask you for clarification but you haven't provided an answer. I'm guessing either because the answer you got doesn't help your argument, or that you've not asked and are making your own assumptions about what your IT department do.


I already told you it is static.



I have no reason to believe they aren't using DHCP on your office network. I did ask you for clarification but you haven't provided an answer. I'm guessing either because the answer you got doesn't help your argument, or that you've not asked and are making your own assumptions about what your IT department do.
.


The reality is I already told you that it is static.


So whilst I don't know exactly what your company are doing, without explicit evidence to the contrary, it's a pretty safe bet to assume they are using DHCP.


OK then so because you worked for an ISP you think you know what every little office across the world is doing? Give me a break. I will congratulate you once again for finding a way to bring up your wide ranging and wonderful expertise into this thread.


Is this meant to be of some kind of a threat?


Comprehension fail. I am looking for something to replace the ipod dock I am currently using in my office. Unfortunately sonos won't work there, I am looking for an alternative. You are very knowledgable about this I hoped you could provide me with a suggestion.


If you seriously are looking to replace Sonos with something else because of a lack of manually configurable IP addresses, then that's up to you but I'm not going to help you make a dumb decision by suggesting lesser alternatives.


Comprehension fail. I am in no way looking to replace my sonos system. I already told you I want to buy a zone to use at my office.



I'm sure there will be people who would replace Sonos for something else because of the lack of a toaster-oven capability too.


Again comprehension failure, although I like your use of hyperbole here. I am not looking to replace sonos at my house.




I'm saying (as I'm sure you know, because I actually said it) is that just because other network devices follow a pattern, that doesn't make that pattern the right thing.


Yes I guess the implication is that every other device manufacturer I own is wrong (Apple, RIM, Denon, Samsung, Toshiba, HTC, Prophix, Qnap, Linksys, Logitech, Western Digital) and sonos is right?


Sonos has plenty of capabilities that are not commonplace on network devices. That's because it's core to the operation of the system. They put some thought into it and not just bolted networking onto it as an add-on.

Supporting a capability that probably less than 0.1% of users actually use (and that nobody actually needs) simply doesn't make sense.


Hence, why I have repeatedly stated that this option would be nice to have. I see you have done some market research on sonos users.


... and introduces a significant benefit to users (and, presumably to Sonos in sales).


Yes point being not every user benefits from every update. Maybe you wouldn't benefit from static but I would.


I haven't any problem saying it would be handy for you (just as VPNs would be handy for me) although, as I have pointed out, it's certainly a "nice to have" and not essential for you. You could resolve any issues you have in better ways if you really wanted.




The only problem I have is with your arguing that it's a significant, important and useful feature, and even that it's essential and a massive oversight for Sonos not to provide this capability. .

Give me a break, I stated no such thing. What I actually said is that this feature would be nice to have. But not at the expense of core music playing upgrades.


It's none of these. Your arguments for this simply have not stood up to any scrutiny and have been mostly based on assumptions, tenuous associations, contrived situations, selective quoting, changing arguments and syntactical trickery rather than addressing the point.


Judge and Jury all in one? Is this some kind of personal attack? I won't respond to this obvious bating as it is probably a violation of forum rules and you would likely just edit out my comments.

The only point I have made is that for me this feature would be a nice one to have, if it isn't useful for you feel free to register a -1.


As a long time user and community member, I have a vested interest in the platform. many of the other people on this forum are the same. There are definitely many features the community wants and which make sense and which would benefit the rest of the community. This really isn't one of them. Neither is the toaster oven.


Hyperbole doesn't help your argument. No one is talking about a toaster, this is ridiculous.


I will say that, however much you try to dismiss it, my experience tells me a lot that is important and relevant regarding this subject. I'm happy to share some of this knowledge with the community. Unfortunately with any community there will be people who think they know better and who refuse to listen to expert advice and knowledge on the subject, and who will argue the toss to get their own way in the face of overwhelming evidence.


I haven't tried to dismiss your experience, its just that I don't care. You haven't swayed me because grand proclamations of experience and statements as if every situation has one right and one wrong aren't convincing to me.:rolleyes:


And you have the cheek to suggest I'm the one being the troll here!


I guess you didn't see the wink I put on the end of that sentence to signify I was joking.:rolleyes:

Anyway, another one of your classic posts, keep it up! I will keep coming back to the forums just to read up on the latest proclamation.
I already told you it is static.

The reality is I already told you that it is static.


I am assuming you are reasonably intelligent, literate and that you have a good command of the English language.

I can only think of one other reason you are avoiding answering the question directly as I have explained it carefully on 2-3 different occasions and still you still give an irrelevant answer.

I can only conclude you are avoiding answering the question because the chances it are it would further demonstrate the real truth of the situation.

Never mind, it would not have mattered anyway. Even if you had genuinely asked your IT dept. and they had responded with the answer I was least expecting, that doesn't make your case any stronger because there are still ways of configuring Sonos to work on that kind of network without resorting to needing manual IP address configuration.

I asked the question because I was trying to guide you towards a proper solution.

However, your postings indicate that you aren't actually interested in facts or a solution, but are more interested in prolonging the argument.

The other question that I would have asked if I felt this was a genuine call for help would have been "What IP addresses, netmask and gateway address have your IT dept. given you for your Sonos equipment", but as this seems to be more of a bating session than a genuine call for help, I'm not going to take this any further.

I am looking for something to replace the ipod dock I am currently using in my office. Unfortunately sonos won't work there, I am looking for an alternative. You are very knowledgable about this I hoped you could provide me with a suggestion.


And I did provide a suggestion, which you ignored, presumably because it rendered invalid your arguments for this being a requirement.

Yes I guess the implication is that every other device manufacturer I own is wrong (Apple, RIM, Denon, Samsung, Toshiba, HTC, Prophix, Qnap, Linksys, Logitech, Western Digital) and sonos is right?


Right or Wrong, black or white. It's not as simple as that.

However, I will offer that the Sonos approach is "better".

Consider that this is hardly likely to have been a simple omission. It has to be a design decision and one that I suspect was considered carefully as the implications of getting it wrong could have been disastrous.

I cannot seriously see Sonos launching a product onto the market which was missing such a capability if they considered it to be as important or useful as you are implying.

The fact that Sonos have been successful and they have yet to find a real need to introduce this capability is all the proof that is required.

I recently noticed that 4 out of the 5 mobile phones in my household don't allow an IP address to be manually configured, so it's not just Sonos.

Give me a break, I stated no such thing. What I actually said is that this feature would be nice to have.


You actually berated me thus: "...your opinion is not helpful to anyone who needs to use static".

Once again a change of tack.

But not at the expense of core music playing upgrades.


Oh, that's a new one! I cannot see anywhere you said this.

In fact your posts seemed to suggest very strongly that for some people it was a compulsory feature in order for them to be able to use Sonos in the first place, and that Sonos seemed to have omitted a vital and "standard" feature.


I guess you didn't see the wink I put on the end of that sentence to signify I was joking.:rolleyes:


You don't seem to have missed that I didn't put a wink.

I looked back and a surprising number of your posts seem to be argumentative, and you seem to enjoy prolonging the argument by changing tack and ignoring key facts where it suits you, even when you raised them in the first place....

In this thread you made claims about a situation you felt warranted manual IP config. I explained why it wasn't required and even gave a solution. You avoid my direct questioning and then even suggest that an analysis of the scenario is "totally unnecessary and basically meaningless".

You then even claim you were only looking for a solution when you ignore the one I presented to you.

Your postings are a classic of their own, the way you change tack, avoid home truths, sidestep facts, and try to stir up further argument. I would like to say I enjoy your posting style, but I don't. Personally it causes an unpleasant assault on my sensibilities similar to the assault on my sense of smell when I walk past a busy cowshed.

So I was deadly serious. A wink wasn't appropriate. And I'm not going to be feeding you any further.

So I, as of now, you will be added to my ignore list, which means I won't be subjected to your latest proclamation!

As Anne Robinson would say: "... Goodbye!"

Keith
Userlevel 2
Can we have the page in Desktop Controller's Settings for network configuration of the components?

Now, I know that somebody already suggested this (search: network settings) but it was two years ago and IMHO conversation completely missed the point.

I would really like to be able to assign static IPs to Sonos components. Here is why:

I recently had a problem with Play:3 speaker being dropped from the system and forgetting all its settings (groups, last source, etc.) The problem was that the speaker got new IP number as devices were joining and leaving my network. The problem was exacerbated by the ISP (Time Warner Cable) that limits the number of IPs in its router/DHCP server to 14, so one can very quickly bust the limit and guaranty that networked devices will regularly swap IP numbers. This could be easily fixed if I could assign static IP numbers.

The question for me is not whether one should use static IP numbers or not. The thing is that one should have the choice.
Sonos communicates via uPnP, and that standard calls for dynamic IPs. I understand that it is causing a problem in your case. The solution I would recommend is to put a second, properly functioning router behind the one your ISP provides.

Sonos currently offers very extensive customer service. To keep this manageable, they are very hesitant to include any features that can cause malfunctioning of the system by user misconfiguration. With static IPs, this potential is very high, as all the IPs have to be carefully assigned by the user to avoid duplicates. That's why I think it is unlikely Sonos will ever implement your request.
...The problem was exacerbated by the ISP (Time Warner Cable) that limits the number of IPs in its router/DHCP server to 14...

So, because your ISP provides crappy equipment, a perfectly functioning system is supposed to change to allow for it?
Userlevel 2
Hi NoBoB. No, not because my ISP provides "crappy equipment", but because we should have capability to configure the network whichever way we think is the best – we should have a choice.

Also, the Ubee DDW3611 cable modem/router is far from crappy. It uses the latest cable content delivery standard (DOCSIS 3.0) and it is a well-made product. The thing is that TWC limits its functionality, and access to their equipment, to control how many computers their client can connect to the network (some BS about neighbors stealing your Internet and bringing bandwidth to a crawl). And BTW, don't think that I am defending TWC. Far from it. However, in this case the equipment is OK.

But I'm digressing.

You are missing the point, NoBoB. The question is not how "crappy" is my router. The question is, should I have administrative access to network settings for all devices that I connect to my network (crappy or not). I think that the answer is yes. In this respect Sonos is no better than TWC – preventing me to troubleshoot the network configurations when things don't work as they should.

On the other hand, I do understand your point, Avee. If you open network configuration to everybody, some users will mess with it, resulting in more tech support calls to Sonos. However, I do strongly believe that every device that has a computer network capability should also have its network settings exposed. Look at TVs and Blue-ray players. They became networkable only recently, but one can perform some network configuration tasks, or at least view what the settings are. And I don't think that this keeps their tech support up at night.

Anyway, I am happy to report that I actually fixed the problem with the Paly:3 speaker and it's now working as it should (or as I want it to work). So at the moment I don't need to tinker with the network settings. Until something goes hi-wire again and I will crave access to the network settings again.

Cheers.
Hi NoBoB. No, not because my ISP provides "crappy equipment", but because we should have capability to configure the network whichever way we think is the best – we should have a choice.

Sorry, sv212 - I'll agree with NoBoB and Avee.

You should have choices and you do have choices: Live with the non-standard restrictions that TWC has imposed on you or; place an additional router after the offending unit and fix the issue the correct way.

Asking Sonos to provide you with a poor workaround (while a fair question) has been cogently rebutted, and will most likely not ever happen.

I'll agree that your 'administrative access to network settings for all devices' request is valid and should be directed to TWC - not Sonos.

I suspect that we all know that you'll be tilting at windmills by talking to TWC. Unfortunately, that's not an excuse to blame Sonos.

TWC went off 'accepted standards' - not Sonos. Complain to the right cohort.

Best of Luck
Userlevel 2
I disagree, Buegie. And if I had the desire to test it (I don't), I would be willing to bet that the problem would not be solved if I replaced the router with a non TWC one.

I agree that TWC is a nightmare to deal with. However, their tech support people (especially at higher levels) are actually quite knowledgeable and their hart is in the right place. If I asked, they would turn the TWC router into the bridge mode and I could use any router I wanted.

However:

I'll say it again; it's not the choice of the router that is the problem here. Sonos system would work without the router, yes? It's the lack of network configuration capability in Sonos. That's all I was asking for and if it doesn't happen that's ok too.

That's it, I'm out. Thanks all.
I disagree, Buegie. And if I had the desire to test it (I don't), I would be willing to bet that the problem would not be solved if I replaced the router with a non TWC one.

I know you're "gone" sv212, but for the benefit of those who actually are looking for actionable answers, Avee and I did not suggest replacing the TWC router. We suggested placing a second router after the TWC router that would hand out enough IP addresses and/or can be configured for dedicated IPs for each ZP and any other IP enabled component(s).

I agree that TWC is a nightmare to deal with. However, their tech support people (especially at higher levels) are actually quite knowledgeable and their hart is in the right place. If I asked, they would turn the TWC router into the bridge mode and I could use any router I wanted.

As we suggested, the above would be the most simple and easy solution. All without the need for Sonos to change their internal setup or cause more user-error possibilities. Implemented in a few minutes. Minor muss & fuss. Less time spent than either you or I did in posting to this Thread. Occam's Razor.

However:

I'll say it again; it's not the choice of the router that is the problem here. Sonos system would work without the router, yes? It's the lack of network configuration capability in Sonos. That's all I was asking for and if it doesn't happen that's ok too.


Sonos would auto-IP within its own 'mesh-network' without a router. One would not be able to control it without the Sonos dedicated controller. Avee, Ratty or Buzz may be able to provide more details.

Sonos will work without a modem (connection to the Internet) but is best with a correctly configured router. That's how many folks use it who do not have an Internet connection (i.e. - router w/no Modem).

But you are partially correct. It's not the choice of router. It's the artificial IP limitations created by TWC that are causing the issues. You still want Sonos to fix something that is outside standard norms caused by a third party.

That's it, I'm out. Thanks all.

Bye.

Best of Luck