jec6613

I haven't checked the portal UUID or looked at what the UID coming to my DHCP server is since I changed the reservation, but yes I can confirm that I have an IPv4 address.

It's sending a unique ID, not its MAC address, to supported servers. This has been the new standard for a few years now to support IPv6 - that unique ID is not dependent on the NIC but is for the entire system, so a well designed system can multi-path over multiple NICs with multiple IPv6 addresses.

I had the same issue - see my post earlier about DHCP changes with the OS update.

I just checked my DHCP server, was much the easiest. It's standard BSD though so I'm sure you can find it via ssh as well.

After the upgrade, it's no longer sending the MAC to a router but a DHCP UID number (which is much longer) - anybody with DHCP reservations be sure to update them!

Z-wave also runs into network contention on big networks, so I find them less than ideal with a big install. However, Z-Wave offers higher security and some interesting devices that do not exist in Insteon, so along with me 150+ Insteon devices I have 50 or so Z-Wave as well. All of the ISY variants allow them to work seamlessly together.

Dome sold Z-Wave ones years ago, I have about 5 of them in high-risk areas, maintain them once a year and don't need to worry about checking snap traps in the attic. If they catch a mouse, the cheap snap traps come up to make sure I get them all!

Yeah, announced right after the US tariffs. It's not really clear what will be taxed coming into Canada because you import so much from us that can't be sourced elsewhere (photographic and motion picture film, for instance), but this is really (on the US side anyway) mostly about killing the de minimis loophole that allows Shein and Temu to operate from Canada's free trade zones and skip the pre-existing tariffs on Chinese goods entering the US. It's a right old mess.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who got the email about using AI camera detection to use lights and sounds to scare off predators. Which given how brazen the coyotes have been this year (and unfortunately got some smaller dogs in my town), sounds excellent! However, we have black bears around as well, and camera AI helpfully identifies one of these goofballs as a bear about 2% of the time. Helpfully, he also makes coyotes rethink their life choices the few times they've approached his yard (Labrador Retriever for scale)

Ditto, it appears to roll it back.

In most cases, there should be a screw hole in the back of the box, you can pick up a bag of green grounding screws to give a positive connection to the conduit system.

Couldn't that just be accomplished by poking a firewall hole? I do understand wanting to have PG3x on an IoT VLAN in order for some functionality to work at all because of broadcast domain issues, though I solved that by using my old Polisy as a PG3x head-end in that VLAN, and an above mentioned firewall hole, but you can already slice up the internal NIC to two virtual NICs, so doing VLAN magic seems pretty trivial after that.

One thing about Wi-Fi is it's not like Z-Wave or Insteon or Zigbee. While the above three provide the full stack of OSI layer 1-7. Wi-Fi is only OSI layers 1-2, basic connectivity only. It still needs TCP/IP to handle layers 3 and 4, as well as the rest of the application stack (5-7) to make it useful. Protocols like Matter look to fill that gap with something that's standards complaint for home automation devices, but right now on Wi-Fi, or TCP/IP generally, it's individual per vendor, requiring the use of a Polyglot plugin as @dbwarner5 describes. To complicate matters further, many devices using Wi-Fi for their connectivity only communicate to a cloud server, and do not permit you, on your local LAN, to access the device directly. Others lock down the communication to only their smartphone app via cryptography, and still others allow you to access it locally without issue. And one thing to keep in mind as you add Wi-Fi devices, is that they have a hidden node problem that leads to your network slowing down as you add more devices, with each associated device taking about 1% of your total Wi-Fi bandwidth even when it's doing nothing - and even with multiple APs to mitigate this, there are still only three clear Wi-Fi channels in the 2.4 GHz ISM band, leading to a practical maximum of about 300 devices connected in a standard home with normal business-grade equipment (note: this can be overcome, but as with most problems it's solved by throwing money at it). Unless your Wi-Fi network is already significantly overbuilt, you'll need to budget for a large expansion.

No, but the Home Assistant minimums assume you're running, "On the Iron," so it's loading up a bunch of drivers - virtualized, its memory needs are more modest.

Update: there was a connectivity issue where a firewall rule was eating ICMP packets - put an allow rule in and things started working, thanks for putting me on the right track!