Is it possible to set a static IP address on the Argon? We would like to use the Argon in beta test but due to our customers IT requirements, it has to be a static IP address - DHCP is disabled as a global rule for them.
Thanks,
I haven’t tested whether it’s implemented already, but if you try be aware this is supposed to be a “sticky” setting which would require actively resetting to dynamic once you don’t want it anymore.
Static IP addresses are not supported on the Argon or the Ethernet FeatherWing, at least through 0.8.0-rc.27.
They’re planned to be implemented, but I don’t have a date the feature will be added yet.
1 Like
Would it make sense to publish a list of commands and features that are currently supported by the Photon that are not implemented yet on the Mesh devices? There are a few things like this it would be great from a product development perspective ( we are itching to switch to the Mesh devices but these are hold ups for us). Even without target dates, it would help clear up a bunch of stuff - I know the development is still very active on the Mesh devices
Is there any evolution on availability of Static IP address support on the Argon?
Sorry, support for static IP addresses on the Argon is not on the schedule to be implemented in the near future.
I realize this is quite an old thread but I haven’t been able to find an explanation as to why static IP’s aren’t an option for Argon devices but are and option on the much older photons. I mean, how do I get some number of argons to talk to each other if whatever I’m using as a DHCP server goes offline? What if my dhcp server isn’t fancy enough for static reservations? I’m having to give up my mesh functionality because I can’t do all the things I want to do without updating - which makes my xenons pretty much useless, but I can’t swap in argons because I can’t guarantee a dhcp server etc. etc. - I’m sure this has all been discussed either externally or internally, but I don’t see a why anywhere (maybe I’m just looking in the wrong places?)
I don’t think anyone liked that mesh was dropped, but the explanation - while unfortunate - was at least somewhat reasonable (I still have very mixed feelings about this), but this seems more like something that was prevented rather than it being too complex to implement - especially if the photon’s can do it, and it’s not like the hardware isn’t capable of it, so what am I missing? Is there a workaround? I’d rather not use photons in place of argons, especially since I’ve been using the form factor for quite some time, and I’d have to jump through a lot of hoops to get functionality from the argons in the photons.
I don’t want to harp on this too much, but it just seems like we’re loosing functionality in favor of… something nebulous and unclear, but I fully accept that I may just be completely misunderstanding something (I hope that’s the case actually).
I don’t want to take away from your main point on loss of functionality, I am hoping someone could answer you there.
I have a few Argon’s on my local network and I plan to add some more so, this is more about understanding your motivation for this feature.
I do want to probe a bit on the static IP approach of setting on the device versus reserving an IP address on the router. I have used many routers over the years and I can’t remember one that did not have this capability - even if the cheap one’s had janky interfaces. Also, it would seem that this approach has some advantages:
- The router will not allow two devices to have the same reserved IP address (as long as all use DCHP)
- You can change / update these IP addresses without having to refresh the Argon devices
- Some routers even let you assign easy to remember names like octopi.lan instead of 192.168.1.37
To me the biggest benefit is the first as, I would imagine, it might be hard to figure out what is going on if I were to fat-finger a static IP address and two devices ended up with the same one.
I can tell from your comment that you are familiar with these capabilities. I was wondering why setting a static IP address on the Argon is your preference?
Thanks, Chip
2 Likes
So, the use case is actually a vehicle. I currently have a hotspot in it. You’re correct, this hotspot actually does have the ability to do a static reservation (it has a considerably more interesting interface using the web page for it than the stupid app - suffice to say, it needed LUCI/DDWRT enabled). The one I had in there before (which I swapped out primarily because it kept overheating and becoming unreliable) did not have that kind of functionality. I could have given static IPs to devices and not used the DHCP server on it, but this just ended up making more sense.
I had originally wanted to use a boron, but the pricing for cell usage through particle - especially when I’m tinkering and experimenting - was a little annoying and I wanted to be able to have my argon switch wifi networks when I got home (which I could do through various means I won’t go into to keep this post from getting toooooo long 
). What I didn’t want/need was for all the devices (there’s 5) to be on the wifi directly. The reason for this is that I didn’t want to put holes in weird places and cause sealing issues and some sensors don’t do particularly well in noisy environments and over and around various components etc. etc.
It was simpler to stick a xenon in a box under the hood tucked away and only give it whatever sensor(s) and some power and then send that on down the line. Several of the xenons need to talk to each other directly - i.e., a button to turn on an exterior light or a sensor sending data to a screen inside the vehicle, etc. This is sort of where using the argons breaks down a little. When I was using the older hotspot, when it would barf and loose connectivity, the wifi stopped working as well which means I had to rely on the xenon’s mesh ability to still do at least part of its job - even if I was unable to access anything remotely. Chiefly, the key fob/remote unlock I put together using one of those 433mhz remotes. (security through obscurity… and low theft value lol - it’s always an ongoing project).
Anyway, trying to keep from going off on too many tangents… Despite my best efforts, the hotspot I have in there now also gets pretty friggin hot. Even with it not being in the sun or stuffed under something that doesn’t get any air etc., it just sometimes does. I’m considering active cooling (fan) but its already a little unwieldy and am trying to not eat up a bunch of awkward space (not to mention the battery). I’ve got 2 yellow top optima batteries so I’m not overly concerned about power, but I’ve also not done any in depth evaluations of power consumption, but my impression is that the xenons use less power (and start up super quick). I think the power utilization of the argons is higher - though by how much, I don’t know (don’t have that info handy at the moment).
Long story short, (though not much), I would much rather keep the mesh, but since particle has dropped pretty much all support for it, at some point, updating/changing/adding anything is going to be a bit of a problem. Whether using static reservations or static IPs, I’m also concerned about startup times. Some of the devices turn off with the vehicle and I’ve been reliant on the fast connection times of the xenons to avoid certain issues that could arise, as well as obvious showstoppers if the hotspot takes a crap… (it’s on all the time btw).
Sorry for the length, brevity is not my strong suit… lol
1 Like