Control & Automation

Yes You Can Turn Off Sonos Wi-Fi: No More Broadcast Storms!

Users hate that Sonos unleashes a Wi-Fi broadcast storm even if you’re not using a wireless SonosNet connection. Now Domotz running on a Luxul router lets you kill the RF.

·

Read full article.

9 Comments
Posted by Bruno Napoli on December 7, 2017

One of the biggest problem of Sonos it that it share the same MAC address in WiFi and in Ethernet.
This cause huge loop in the network.

Posted by Bjorn Jensen on December 7, 2017

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the article states that STP, which is enabled by default in the Luxul switches, can be used to fix the loop in the network.  This is true, but what happens is the port the Sonos unit is on OR the port on the switch which the access point that feeds the Sonos unit will end up being blocked by the switch to remove the loop and prevent a broadcast storm.  At best this will just negate the hardwire on the Sonos unit.  At worst it will disable the access point it’s connected to.  If you’re going this route an easier solution is to just not hardwire the Sonos in the first place.

There are ways to manage STP so it doesn’t block an entire ports data from being forwarded, such as using PVST, but that will just keep it from blocking all VLANs, but will still block the traffic on the VLAN it finds the loop.

I applaud Domotz for always being forward thinking and adding this simple, yet effective feature to their system.  It would keep me from having to remember the URL to use on the Sonos units.  Bruno is also correct that this specific looping problem could be fixed by having a separate MAC address for wired and wireless but it’s still good to disable the internal wireless radio on the Sonos units so that you eliminate unnecessary RF interference.  Just my two cents.  If there is something I misread in the statement about STP I apologize.

Posted by Julie Jacobson on December 7, 2017

(edited)
Thank you for the comments Bjorn and Bruno. I will add the MAC address issue to the story. Bjorn, it is entirely possible that I misunderstood Luxul’s comments on STP, as this is certainly not my area of expertise. I’‘ll get some clarity.

On another note ... Is there a good reason for Sons’ using the same MAC addresses for wired/wireless? Any downsides for using different addresses?

Thanks again for taking the time to enlighten us.

Posted by Bjorn Jensen on December 7, 2017

I can’t think of any good reason for Sonos to use the same MAC on both.  Only downsides.  The downside being potentially creating a broadcast storm.  I started writing a lot about it for you and then decided there may be a good animation of it out on the internets so a quick YouTube search found the following handy explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se-pVwapTic

What the animation doesn’t show is the exponential growth of frames being forwarded throughout the network.  This exponential increase in frames will most likely eventually bring the network to its knees and make it freeze up altogether.

Posted by Julie Jacobson on December 7, 2017

Maybe we need to create a “naughty” list for the holidays?

Posted by gblasko on December 7, 2017

Or even easier, every Sonos has a API interface that can be accessed via http. Follow instructions here. https://bsteiner.info/articles/disabling-sonos-wifi

Posted by Julie Jacobson on December 7, 2017

Thanks for the link gblasko. I should have included it in the story reference where I suggested this technique as an option. The problem is ... it’s complicated. And of course if you need to toggle on/off the wireless every so often for whatever reason (moving from indoor to outdoor and back, for example), it’s a pain.

Posted by rocFusion on December 8, 2017

None of this is actually new, anyone serious about Sonos already has this on their installation checklist.  Luxul is just pulling on the chains of the newbie, yet another marketing trick.

Posted by AlexChisholm on December 8, 2017

This is not new… it’s been available for some time.

9 Comments
Posted by AlexChisholm on December 8, 2017

This is not new… it’s been available for some time.

Posted by rocFusion on December 8, 2017

None of this is actually new, anyone serious about Sonos already has this on their installation checklist.  Luxul is just pulling on the chains of the newbie, yet another marketing trick.

Posted by Julie Jacobson on December 7, 2017

Thanks for the link gblasko. I should have included it in the story reference where I suggested this technique as an option. The problem is ... it’s complicated. And of course if you need to toggle on/off the wireless every so often for whatever reason (moving from indoor to outdoor and back, for example), it’s a pain.

Posted by gblasko on December 7, 2017

Or even easier, every Sonos has a API interface that can be accessed via http. Follow instructions here. https://bsteiner.info/articles/disabling-sonos-wifi

Posted by Julie Jacobson on December 7, 2017

Maybe we need to create a “naughty” list for the holidays?

Posted by Bjorn Jensen on December 7, 2017

I can’t think of any good reason for Sonos to use the same MAC on both.  Only downsides.  The downside being potentially creating a broadcast storm.  I started writing a lot about it for you and then decided there may be a good animation of it out on the internets so a quick YouTube search found the following handy explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se-pVwapTic

What the animation doesn’t show is the exponential growth of frames being forwarded throughout the network.  This exponential increase in frames will most likely eventually bring the network to its knees and make it freeze up altogether.

Posted by Julie Jacobson on December 7, 2017

(edited)
Thank you for the comments Bjorn and Bruno. I will add the MAC address issue to the story. Bjorn, it is entirely possible that I misunderstood Luxul’s comments on STP, as this is certainly not my area of expertise. I’‘ll get some clarity.

On another note ... Is there a good reason for Sons’ using the same MAC addresses for wired/wireless? Any downsides for using different addresses?

Thanks again for taking the time to enlighten us.

Posted by Bjorn Jensen on December 7, 2017

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the article states that STP, which is enabled by default in the Luxul switches, can be used to fix the loop in the network.  This is true, but what happens is the port the Sonos unit is on OR the port on the switch which the access point that feeds the Sonos unit will end up being blocked by the switch to remove the loop and prevent a broadcast storm.  At best this will just negate the hardwire on the Sonos unit.  At worst it will disable the access point it’s connected to.  If you’re going this route an easier solution is to just not hardwire the Sonos in the first place.

There are ways to manage STP so it doesn’t block an entire ports data from being forwarded, such as using PVST, but that will just keep it from blocking all VLANs, but will still block the traffic on the VLAN it finds the loop.

I applaud Domotz for always being forward thinking and adding this simple, yet effective feature to their system.  It would keep me from having to remember the URL to use on the Sonos units.  Bruno is also correct that this specific looping problem could be fixed by having a separate MAC address for wired and wireless but it’s still good to disable the internal wireless radio on the Sonos units so that you eliminate unnecessary RF interference.  Just my two cents.  If there is something I misread in the statement about STP I apologize.

Posted by Bruno Napoli on December 7, 2017

One of the biggest problem of Sonos it that it share the same MAC address in WiFi and in Ethernet.
This cause huge loop in the network.