My thoughts!
Why wouldn’t external access to iHost via Web Cast be enabled in the future?
I think that this kind of solution would overcome the problem of external access to iHost!
You mean remote access via cloud?
That!
I think that would not be the most convenient way to implement remote access through the cloud.
Honestly, the original plan for iHost is to provide users a out-of-box localized smart home hub, and we do know the missing part of it is the cloud, maybe we will consider to make a plan for the cloud or remote access, but for now, don’t have a solid one for it.
Another way to bring the remote access capability to iHost is find a way to make it support NAT, which we are doing some research now.
To help us know more about this feature, would you please let me know why you request it?
Physically separating smart home devices into two “networks” (internal and external) is the smallest problem, however, the user sometimes finds himself in a situation where he needs a smart device located on the “internal network” to be externally controlled (from a remote point).
Based on the above, I believe that external access should be enabled or at least offered as an option that would be charged additionally.
I hope that your teams of experts will look into this problem and offer users a satisfactory solution.
“plans for the cloud” sounds good, “nat support” sounds even better. To be homest I’m not using iHost (put it in the box) because of lack of remote access. Visibility of sensors is a must for me unfortunately I don’t have public IP and VPN is not a solution in my case.
I’m not an expert but I was thinking if some add on could solve this problem, like cloudflare and freenom in HA. Problem is that docker version of HA doesn’t have add ons.
I think that you don"t have many questions about remote access now because iHost owners are still focus on proper operation of iHost (known issues) but I’m sure it will be main subject within next months.
The reason I need Remote access to iHost is, I am using the iHost as Zigbee Co-ordinator. And I cannot control any of the Zigbee devices through eWeLink.
Indeed, now we are working on the stability of the iHost, and try to provide more features by add-ons, as for remote access, our goal is offer a friendly way for users, maybe NAT service add-on, no complex settings or configurations, just some essential login or something, still digging.
1 Like
Make sence, let’s find out what we can do.
Router NAT and services like dyndns or noip for those who have a dynamic public IP is the way.
That would be good solution with public IP or dynamic public IP, but me and 99% of people I know have only private IP. In this case only some NAT service add on can help as was suggested in the previous post from yittie.
Has there been any progress with external access to the iHost?
I have just unboxed mine with a view to moving over from a eWeLink/Sonoff Bridge-P setup that’s integrated with Google Home.
The lack of external access and the potential for it not to integrate with Google Home would make me want to box it back up and return it.
External access to a smart home system should be a basic and given feature. I don’t understand how this would not be planned for or implemented from day one. (not meaning to sound impolite or rude!!)
1 Like
Morgan, that is awesome, thank you!
Soo helpful and exactly what I need, a step by step guide. I’m feeling a little more positive about my purchase now!
I love how the iHost screenshot almost match my setup. I have Test Room and Office!
Hopefully I get to do this weekend. Then it will be looking into Google Home integration.
Thank you again!
1 Like
In our country, we cannot use the Tailscale and VPN mobile network. not allowed due to traffic. Tailscale and VPN can only be used with Wi-Fi.
please consider countries like us. Make a convenient ihost management method.
I have recently bought the sonoff iHost. I do love the local functionality “idea”, its faster and more reliable as we do have a very unstable ISP in SA.
I recreated most of the automated scenes on the iHost, it was a time-saving task, only to realize that some were impossible to recreate since they need the sun set and sunrise times to activate some devices. I feel that the iHost can overcome this issue as there is already database with the sunrise/sunset tables available for offline use, which is quite accurate by year and date timestamp.
My initial reason for purchasing the iHost was the idea of building my own security system, performing automatise scenes at the times when there is no internet access available and also for the fact that it already has a built-in Zigbee bridge.
The lack of it being incapable of remote monitoring defeats its entire purpose, since you can’t see whether the alarm is being armed or disarmed, see which device is activated, and also the notification thereof. ** The iHost also does not creates its one local WiFi network, and for Zigbee devices paired to the iHost cannot be remotely accessed or viewed via cloud.|
The localization of the iHost invalidates the reason for the lack of the above features and capabilities of iHost as all these devices rely on internet connectivity for updates, even for the iHost.
My idea of the iHost is that it has the same purpose and functionality as the Cloud base version of eWelink, in terms of remote control and monitoring, but still has the advantage of performing automatic scenes for the times there is no internet available.
But at currently, for me, buying the iHost is a waste of money and time.
1 Like
ihost’s initial goal is to support all different cloud platforms (not just eWeLink cloud only) with the matter bridge feature - we believe that in the future ihost can connect to all different cloud platforms and apps
1 Like