Does the etherdongle support unicast e1.31?

[comporder1]

Multicast is not permitted over the Internet. The whole purpose of this thread is to get DMX to my neighbors house via the inet.


Sent with Tapatalk/iPhone. Xcuse the spelzing!

[mmciver]

oh,  I missed that part:)

There are VPN solutions that will allow you to encapsulate multicast and transmit over the internet.

I have seen it done multiple times at work, and I believe there is a thread on aussiechristmas that talks about doing multicast from Australia to Los Angeles over the Internet and controlling a show.

Mike.

[pokey]

The product I mentioned solves the multicast over Internet issue by converting to Unicast and then spitting out Multicast on the opposite end.  Works great...I promise and no need to fuss with silly old VPN's....

[comporder1]

I'm liking the looks of it pokey. I wonder if the transmit end can run on the same machine as the computer the show is running from?


Sent with Tapatalk/iPhone. Xcuse the spelzing!

[pokey]

Given the tiny amount of data, I expect it can.  I was using it for High Def video, so it was a little more involved.  I can't see it being an issue running on the same device.

[comporder1]

RJ,

Knowing that the one and only etherdongle coop is coming soon, could you speak to the possibility of adding unicast support?

Thank you,

Carey


Sent with Tapatalk/iPhone. Xcuse the spelzing!

[chrisatpsu]

you could do a wireless ethernet bridge, and or repeater to keep it on the same network, if one computer is running the show

[comporder1]

That has all been discussed. I am interested in unicast support.


Sent with Tapatalk/iPhone. Xcuse the spelzing!

[rrowan]

RJ has already said no

Rick R.

[comporder1]

I've not seen where he has said "no, I do not plan to add unicast support"




Sent with Tapatalk/iPhone. Xcuse the spelzing!

[rrowan]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The very first reply RJ said No

Rick R.

Sent from iPhone 4s

[sielbear]

One other thing to consider is your latency between networks. I'd guess you'll run around 55ms at best, but utilization of that link may push you to several hundred ms very quickly. This may be noticeable when you have your yard less than 1 ms and your neighbors latency fluctuating.

I'd use the conductor slave units if possible as this will yield the best results. As a secondary option, I'd look at the point to point wireless option. In open space 150 yards isn't too large a distance.

[JonB256]

I don't have an Etherdongle to perform a similar test, but Comporder1 just successfully ran my 128 Channel Bellagio Poles from his house (in Mississippi) to my house (in Texas).

I put my E1.31 (an ECG-DR4) device in my router's DMZ and sent him the correct IP. He knew the universe and xLights sequenced the test flawlessly. 

Now a question for the Etherdongle owners. Does each universe have its own IP address? or does the Etherdongle have a single IP for all of its output? (I ask, because the ECG-DR4 uses 1 IP address for all four universes)

[RJ]

And this would prove what. That you can send the data to the unit?

What the poster is saying is he is planning to run the show syncing houses in sight of each other for his show.If he runs it throught the internet any delay will be seen. Across states is not going to matter how would you know if it was in sync with his?

1.31 on unicast is not normal. All you have to do is google it and it all comes back to one set of equipment by one person who is also a Diyer like us.

Some of it does not sound like some of the people who made the protocol think it was a good idea as in this thread you'll find when you google it.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

When he did it I read the post as he was working around an issue he had with the buffer overrunning on him with multicast and would have it fixed in a later version.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I do not have this issue so I am not in need to create a different way to handle 1.31 I also wanted to be fully supported by things like Madrix and other software & devices so I stayed working just like everyone else with multicast. This also allows me to make the device a real plug and play kind of thing that requires no configuring just plug it in.

In the end as always do as I always say, use what works for you. The way I am setting up to handle multishows will work without the modified protocol. 

I did not feel I needed to say all this but got a pm from a staff member concerned this thread was going to turn into a battle of equipment or something and go down hill as they always do at that point, I assured him it would not because our mods would lock it before it was a problem. Every piece of equipment is better for someone. If your goal is to span states with your show  where latecy is not an issue than that may be the way to go. I am only out to do my whole block.

RJ

[comporder1]

Thank you RJ for that post. It is not my goal to start an equipment war. In fact, I have intentionally not named any equipment here that is not supported by this forum. I think JonB256 only asked because he doesn't understand how the etherdongle works. It really does not make since to start equipment wars, as there is really no profit or anything to gain by "selling" more units than the next guy.

I really appreciate the comment you made "use what works best for you".  For me, distance to my neighbors house is a major factor. And for this "IT geek" the most direct way would be internet. I realize that there are 10 ways to do anything (read all the above posts!), but the simplest most effective least latency way is unicast. My last question above was just to clearly see if you had any intentions to adding unicast support to the etherdongle.

The plug and play aspect of the etherdongle is remarkable, and I have no problem with it following the strict multicast protocol. But one could argue the need for multicast at all for our hobby. Unless there are two units that need the same data, there will be wasted bandwith. For commercial applications (concert venues) where there may be 50 spotlights on an e1.31 network that use the same data, it makes complete sense. Maybe one day we will see a 16 channel e1.31 Lynx Express! 

Practicality aside, I'll have to admit, it was neat to control 128 channels of lights 2 states away! It was basically a proof of concept test. My neighbor and I use the same cable ISP on the same node. I suspect the latency will be minimal. I will report back on our findings.

Thank you RJ for all you have done for the progression of this hobby.

Carey