eisy Static IP configuration

[GJ Software Products]

I just got my eisy and I'm trying to set the static IP address for my network.  The "Automatic (DHCP)" check box is greyed out and I don't seem able to uncheck it.  I'm logged in to the AC with my new admin account.  What am I missing?

[tazman]

2 minutes ago, GJ Software Products said:

I just got my eisy and I'm trying to set the static IP address for my network.  The "Automatic (DHCP)" check box is greyed out and I don't seem able to uncheck it.  I'm logged in to the AC with my new admin account.  What am I missing?

Normal practice is to reserve the IP address in your router. 

[GJ Software Products]

Yes, the address I would like to use is outside the DHCP scope but I can't get the IP address field in a place where I can change it.  I need to move the eisy off my general network and address it to a private/segmented zone.

[GJ Software Products]

I can't determine why I can not uncheck the checkbox.  For some reason my admin account is locked out from it.

[GJ Software Products]

Ok, so static DHCP fixed that but I still cannot change the ports either.  It’s really a PITA I’m having to redesign my network to accommodate this new “upgrade” because the ability to configure DHCP doesn’t work.  I’m hoping this can be resolved, understanding that it could be far between a multi zoned/segmented network running behind a SonicWall in a residential setting. Regardless this is the first time I have ever seen a device that DHCP cannot be turned off locally.  And I don’t have the ability to change the ports either.  Creating conflict with my port forwarding rules.  Plus when my employer’s VPN sees 8080 and 8443 open it’ll drop the connection.  I hope there is a way past this.  Another thing I don’t see is a way to choose the NTP server I want to use, all you can do now is choose your location.  Hoping we get the 5.3 (or like) Network and Clock settings back.

[captainc]

I had the same problem with the polisy which could not be accessed directly via a port to configure and make  programs and such.

 

[GJ Software Products]

Yea, talking with Michael they had too many problems with static IP support calls so they disabled it.  And he sez that the ports 8080 & 8443 exposed are also used internally and changing the ports could brick my eisy.  I haven't got a solution yet, Michael has been exceptionally responsive here on Christmas Day, I don't know if they are going to give us back the control we had in 5.3.4 but I'm sure hoping so.

[JMakowski]

v5.5.2 Can't configure a static IP, change the time, or SSH in. WTH? BOO!

[thewebgeek]

52 minutes ago, JMakowski said:

v5.5.2 Can't configure a static IP, change the time, or SSH in. WTH? BOO!

I was able to SSH in and fix the IP address, but I'm still on 5.4.5.  What are the plans on fixing the GUI for this?

[lilyoyo1]

4 hours ago, JMakowski said:

v5.5.2 Can't configure a static IP, change the time, or SSH in. WTH? BOO!

See above about static IP.

[GJ Software Products]

I have to agree with @JMakowski, some of us need to be able to configure our network settings, etc. and locking the end-user blatantly out like this is unacceptable.  Now I'm hearing ssh don't work in 5.5.2.  This really sucks!  My 994i was a great product for many years, I hope I don't have to start looking for another Platform.

[larryllix]

4 hours ago, GJ Software Products said:

I have to agree with @JMakowski, some of us need to be able to configure our network settings, etc. and locking the end-user blatantly out like this is unacceptable.  Now I'm hearing ssh don't work in 5.5.2.  This really sucks!  My 994i was a great product for many years, I hope I don't have to start looking for another Platform.

Configure all IP address control in your router where it should have always been done. ISY doesn't need a static IP address capability, in this decade.

[GJ Software Products]

2 minutes ago, larryllix said:

Configure all IP address control in your router where it should have always been done. ISY doesn't need a static IP address capability, in this decade.

A router is to route, not for individual/local device configuration.  You do not use a router to configure settings on a local device, only if you choose to, I.E. DHCP.  All Ethernet configurations should be able to be made at the local device level, by the local Network Administrator.  Static or DHCP.  If you are going to use ISY in a residential only configuration on nothing more than a cable modem or something of the like, with a typical non-tech homeowner DHCP is a better way to go but when/if the device is deployed in a "commercial" IP network environment it needs to be able to be configured to meet the requirements of the specific network.  Of the thousands of different IP based controllers I have used and installed in my career, and currently support, this is the first time if I choose, I cannot explicitly configure the Ethernet network locally at the node, nor the associated security certificates and keys.  Here UD only, not me  has my cert. keys.  How secure is that?  It makes it very difficult to deploy in the current configuration.  I understand UD had problems with static IP support, but now with a simple button press event to reset network settings that should no longer be a problem.  Possibly a Pro version or another way to let those of us who need full control the ability to do so...  End of rant...

[lilyoyo1]

1 hour ago, GJ Software Products said:

If you are going to use ISY in a residential only configuration on nothing more than a cable modem or something of the like, with a typical non-tech homeowner

I always thought UD products were made for residential use first and professionals secondary. From my experience, there's a huge difference between pro only commercial setups and residential stuff. 

 

1 hour ago, GJ Software Products said:

Of the thousands of different IP based controllers I have used and installed in my career, and currently support, this is the first time if I choose, I cannot explicitly configure the Ethernet network locally at the node, nor the associated security certificates and keys.  Here UD only, not me  has my cert. keys.  How secure is that?  It makes it very difficult to deploy in the current configuration.  I understand UD had problems with static IP support, but now with a simple button press event to reset network settings that should no longer be a problem.  Possibly a Pro version or another way to let those of us who need full control the ability to do so...  End of rant...

From a business standpoint, I can see why UD went this route. Going off the multitude of posts that has been on here due to ssh mistakes with polisy (and static ip's); I can only imagine the multitude of support calls they received. Those calls costs them time and money. While it may be a simple factory reset for you, for them it's not. One only needs to look at the forum posts to see that. 

A pro version is a great idea. Same system and software in actual use but a person can pay extra to unlock the ability to manage everything themselves. This way, if the customer screws it up, then it's on them and they can only blame themselves. 

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by lilyoyo1

[GJ Software Products]

Yep, whether it be additional fee, accreditation, or both; there needs to be a way for capable individuals to get a deeper level of access.  I'm certified on multiple lines, sometimes it's a 5 day(or more) class with a cost and other times free, just so you'll sell the product, free online training, pass a simple test, and you'll get at least the basic stuff.  Most manufactures have multiple tiers of which I have quite a few of.  There can still be a need for factory support but at least it lowers the number of loose nuts behind the keyboard on the phone line.  Stuff UD needs to be cognizant of so those of us who need a little more can get it.  And too understanding UD don't have a help desk with 20 support individuals jumping to pick up the phone.  It's all a balance.

[sjenkins]

I am not seeing SSH blocked at this point with 5.5.2 ;  I really hope it will not be as I use it a fair bit.  Static IP I handle with my router.  Are others unable to SSH ?

[larryllix]

2 hours ago, sjenkins said:

I am not seeing SSH blocked at this point with 5.5.2 ;  I really hope it will not be as I use it a fair bit.  Static IP I handle with my router.  Are others unable to SSH ?

There is no blocking of SSH on my two polisies using v5.5.0. I don't know where somebody would have imagined that idea.

[larryllix]

4 hours ago, GJ Software Products said:

Yep, whether it be additional fee, accreditation, or both; there needs to be a way for capable individuals to get a deeper level of access.  I'm certified on multiple lines, sometimes it's a 5 day(or more) class with a cost and other times free, just so you'll sell the product, free online training, pass a simple test, and you'll get at least the basic stuff.  Most manufactures have multiple tiers of which I have quite a few of.  There can still be a need for factory support but at least it lowers the number of loose nuts behind the keyboard on the phone line.  Stuff UD needs to be cognizant of so those of us who need a little more can get it.  And too understanding UD don't have a help desk with 20 support individuals jumping to pick up the phone.  It's all a balance.

With all that experience it should be simple for you to understand how to make use of a DHCP server IP reservation table to meet your needs. Not many want to keep track and manage IP address tables and risk the confusion that usually follows, trying to swim upstream against the crowd. We have seen too many cases of IP entanglement from users here.

[giomania]

Another vote for static IP control via GUI...not only via SSH. For my use case, I have a control system that I use to call my ISY scenes and devices via http get, and I need a static IP address outside of DHCP to support this functionality.

If I have to figure out how to change that via SSH, that is going to take me probably a couple of hours, which is unnecessary time I don't need to waste.

I am going to sit on the sidelines waiting to deploy my eisy until this issue and the PG3 migration tool is resolved.

[DennisC]

8 hours ago, larryllix said:

With all that experience it should be simple for you to understand how to make use of a DHCP server IP reservation table to meet your needs. Not many want to keep track and manage IP address tables and risk the confusion that usually follows, trying to swim upstream against the crowd. We have seen too many cases of IP entanglement from users here.

Absolutely, I have been using DHCP router reservations for years to lock down all of my devices IP addresses. This way I always know what the IP address for each device is and there are no mistakes resuting in duplicate IP addresses.

The best part is it is all assigned and managed from one device, no need to go to each device to check, update, or change.

[lilyoyo1]

54 minutes ago, giomania said:

Another vote for static IP control via GUI...not only via SSH. For my use case, I have a control system that I use to call my ISY scenes and devices via http get, and I need a static IP address outside of DHCP to support this functionality.

If I have to figure out how to change that via SSH, that is going to take me probably a couple of hours, which is unnecessary time I don't need to waste.

I am going to sit on the sidelines waiting to deploy my eisy until this issue and the PG3 migration tool is resolved.

I don't think it's going to change. This isn't a bug but a choice UDI made. The only thing that will be fixed will be migration..

[mwester]

9 hours ago, larryllix said:

With all that experience it should be simple for you to understand how to make use of a DHCP server IP reservation table to meet your needs. Not many want to keep track and manage IP address tables and risk the confusion that usually follows, trying to swim upstream against the crowd. We have seen too many cases of IP entanglement from users here.

There are sound reasons why one might choose to NOT rely on a DHCP server to reserve IP addresses.  Especially so for critical infrastructure that needs to survive network disruptions of all sorts... and I'd put one's primary Home Automation server in that category.

Indeed it is true that for MOST users, IP addressing is so confusing that they're far better off relying on a router.  But in fact, for those who indeed "have all that experience", is quite "simple ... to understand how to make use of a DHCP server", and it is also quite reasonable for someone with "all that experience" to not wish to rely on that service.

The same is true of DNS and time server addresses, as well as the gateway address (and network netmask).  All of this needs to be made available (albeit hidden behind a "pro-only" feature, that makes some sense).

[giomania]

1 hour ago, lilyoyo1 said:

I don't think it's going to change. This isn't a bug but a choice UDI made. The only thing that will be fixed will be migration..

That is unfortunate. When they fix the PG3 migration, then I will have to put in a ticket for them to change the IP address via SSH, unless someone can point me to the required commands where I can insert my own syntax for my 10.10.2.x network?

Thanks.

[larryllix]

1 hour ago, mwester said:

There are sound reasons why one might choose to NOT rely on a DHCP server to reserve IP addresses.  Especially so for critical infrastructure that needs to survive network disruptions of all sorts... and I'd put one's primary Home Automation server in that category.

Indeed it is true that for MOST users, IP addressing is so confusing that they're far better off relying on a router.  But in fact, for those who indeed "have all that experience", is quite "simple ... to understand how to make use of a DHCP server", and it is also quite reasonable for someone with "all that experience" to not wish to rely on that service.

The same is true of DNS and time server addresses, as well as the gateway address (and network netmask).  All of this needs to be made available (albeit hidden behind a "pro-only" feature, that makes some sense).

75% of my Ethernet devices do not support manual IP address selection now. I guess those devices could never be used on a complex commercial LAN.

These day we have computers and programs to do the tasks humans do not want to do. There are also courses on how to set up DHCP servers properly. On a small system with less than 2-4 devices I could understand not wanting to bother with the complexity of setting up a DHCP server  properly.

There will always be situations that bypassing current technology could apply but there is usually somebody working on power steering and rustproofing iron.

OTH: Insteon addressing is static and permanently assigned without only the factory as a manager, but it is not a publicly accessible system....yet.

[mwester]

15 minutes ago, larryllix said:

75% of my Ethernet devices do not support manual IP address selection now. I guess those devices could never be used on a complex commercial LAN.

Incorrect assumption, Larry.  It's not about "commercial" -- indeed, most commercial and even industrial implementations will use DHCP.  There are select cases where DHCP is not suitable -- one can generalize these as devices that should function even when the DHCP server is not functional or has been misconfigured or has failed.

Courses on DHCP are entirely irrelevant -- this has nothing to do with knowing HOW to use DHCP, it's about using select equipment when DHCP is unavailable or has been misconfigured.

Siimilarly with power steering and rustproofing iron -- while interesting, neither of these has anything at all to do with home automation nor with DHCP, and not even with networking.

I'm not posting this to argue with you, Larry -- you've clearly made up your mind.  Rather, I'm responding to underscore this need to Michel and the crew at UD.  Manual network configuration is a requirement for critical services, even if one "hides" that option so that it is not exposed to the typical user.