-1

I encounter a problem when I'm trying to use a Ubuntu laptop computer to connect to two Sony A6000 through WiFi in the same time. On that laptop there are two WiFi adapters, one is embedded (say, Wifi-A) and the other is an Asus USB-N13 ProN USB dongle (say, Wifi-B).

Using Sony Camera Remote API I can successfully control these two A6000 (say, A6000-A & A6000-B) through these two Wifi adapters, provided only one camera is connected a time. For example, either using Wifi-A to control to A6000-A or A6000-B, or using Wifi-B to control A6000-A or A6000-B, will work. I think this proves both the cameras and Wifi adapters hardware function correctly, and any combination of Wifi adapter and camera works fine, too.

However, it will be different if I try to connect and control both cameras in the same time. The connection to both cameras is OK (though sometimes not very smooth), but controlling them is not. Here is a list of the experiment steps:

  1. Wifi-B connects to A6000-B. Then Wifi-B gets IP address 192.168.122.166

  2. Wifi-A connects to A6000-A. Then Wifi-A gets IP address 192.168.122.165

  3. Send M-SEARCH request to Wifi-A and get response from A6000-A. Then get Device Description XML file from A6000-A successfully.

  4. Send M-SEARCH request to Wifi-B and never get response

I'm wondering if such configuration (One laptop + two Wifi adapter + two A6000) violates any design consideration of A6000? For example, because both cameras use the same IP address 192.168.122.1 for themselves? I'll appreciate if any one could comment on this issue.

Thanks in advance!

Xavier

Oliver Chen
  • 9
  • 2

2 Answers2

1

After doing experiments for many days, I'm sure this symptom is caused by the IP address conflict (both of them are 192.168.122.1) of these two A6000.

As I can't find a way to change them, my optimal solution under such configuration (one laptop + two Wifi adapter + two A6000) is to make use of Linux Network Namespaces. Moving Wifi-B to a new Network Namespace does solve this issue, because every Network Namespace has its own network stack. Now I can freely access both of these A6000 from my laptop.

I hope this answer is helpful to anyone who encounters a similar problem.

Oliver Chen
  • 9
  • 2
  • This is a brilliant idea. I've been struggling with the seemingly insane idea of making these cameras act as access points (is there *any* benefit to this?) and the difficulties it creates when trying to control multiples. I was thinking in terms of building dedicated clients using something like an Arduino or ESP8266, and then connecting to those via a third controller and putting it all i a box, but that would be horrible. Now I have to find out about these namespaces you describe. Thanks! – Toby Eggitt Dec 01 '17 at 20:59
  • You are welcome. Making a camera act as an AP is OK. However, not allowing its IP address to be changed is not considerate to users. It doesn't cost any penny to allow its IP address to be changeable. – Oliver Chen Apr 26 '19 at 00:56
0

There isn't any design consideration that would block this from working. Unfortunately we cannot offer any other troubleshooting suggestions.

mldeveloper
  • 2,253
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • First thank you for confirming my configuration doesn't violate any design consideration. And, I'm wondering if 192.168.122.1 is the ONLY possible IP address for A6000 itself when the Smart Remote Control App is running? If yes, this implies that both of the two A6000 connecting to my laptop via WiFi will use 192.168.122.1 for themselves. – Oliver Chen Oct 16 '15 at 01:29