Controller Setup via Router

[mpageler]

Looking at a mega tree on e131 sometime down the road.  While my show computer has it's ethernet port open, my day-to-day sequencing production PC has Comcast wireless router connected to it.

Did some thread research and appears that a pixel controller can be connected to one of the 3 open ports on the router?  

Just curious if the controller setup/configuration...ip addressing, etc.  is similar to the controller being connected directly to the PC?

Also, once controllers is setup/configured and recognized by LOR, does it always have to be connected and powwered on to do or edit  sequencing for that controller?


Thanks
Mike

 

[Max-Paul]

Ok Mike we have a  saying that I want you to learn. Apply this any time you are tackling something new. Even if you have configured 100 pixel controllers in the past. Start with this saying with the next new controller. "Keep It Simple Stupid"  So first connect directly to your computer and set up the IP of the controller to be compatible with your home network or a different network made for your Christmas lights.  In this case I believe you are going to want to set it up for what ever the router is using on the Lan side of the router. Now it is ready to be plugged into the router. BTW those 4 ports are a switch that is on the LAN side of the router.

 

BTW I aint calling you stupid, its just the saying. And I have to admit from time to time I have not taken this saying seriously and then ended up slapping my forehead and then backing up to a more simple way of doing it. After wasted hours it starts to work in the simple format. Once I got it started working then I could move forward to my complex configurations.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Max-Paul

[viennaxmas]

A standard cable router has two sides (or security zones). The WAN side (either coax or RJ45) and the LAN side. The LAN side usually offers multiple RJ45 ports and also includes the wireless part. The LAN side behaves like a switch. Routing only happens between the LAN and the WAN side. This concept pretty much applies to any home router.

So - with that as a background: yes, you could use the switch functionality on the LAN side for E1.31.

Is it a good idea? No it is not. You want to keep the E1.31 traffic as far away from your regular network. Best practice is a dedicated network card and a dedicated switch unless you want to dive into managed switches and VLAN's.

[mpageler]

Thanks Guys

Very much a KISS in what's the most effective/efficient way to do things.

So at times, I am disappointed when I find my head, up my butt so I do called myself a dump arse from time to time.
 

[dgrant]

My show computer, I've configured the TCPIP port for E1.31 only to a closed network which connects directly to its own "switch". From there, a wireless N-Bridge which connects wirelessly to a secured N-Router which is connected to the controller. For internet use, I use a USB wireless TCPIP connection but during shows, that's disconnected.

[wmilkie]

A standard cable router has two sides (or security zones). The WAN side (either coax or RJ45) and the LAN side. The LAN side usually offers multiple RJ45 ports and also includes the wireless part. The LAN side behaves like a switch. Routing only happens between the LAN and the WAN side. This concept pretty much applies to any home router. So - with that as a background: yes, you could use the switch functionality on the LAN side for E1.31. Is it a good idea? No it is not. You want to keep the E1.31 traffic as far away from your regular network. Best practice is a dedicated network card and a dedicated switch unless you want to dive into managed switches and VLAN's.

 

I didn't want to cause any problems on my main home network, so

I set up a secondary network [second router] to run the E1.31 rgb stuff for 2014, isolated from my primary home network; that way there wasn't any network congestion on my home network

If I needed to connect to my home network(for backup, or to download something), I just connect the WAN port on my secondary network to a LAN port on my primary, and disconnect it when done

 

I only had 600 pixel channels running, and it worked great

Edited January 6, 2015 by wmilkie

[Dcroc]

I was thinking that I would add a second network card for 1.31, and run that to a hub rather than a router.  Would this work?  My show computer currently streams info from my main computer for the LOR sequences. I really don't want the RGB going through that same network. I have fiber optic, so I'm not worried about bogging down the network, as much as I am worried about the computer getting confused (glitching) over all the info coming in and going out on the same network. Any thoughts on this? I'm also thinking that I can run my dumb RGB controller via the Pixalite 4 via the RJ45 out, and do away with the dongle for that, which is one less network.

[EmmienLightFan]

You probably have fiber optic to your house (Internet, not LAN). The local network speed and the speed of your connection to the outside world are different. Many switches are gigabyte (Gig-A-Bit, not Gig-A-Bite) or 100mbs.

The computer shouldn't get confused. It will be fine, especially is it is a fast one.

I will be running a dumb controller off a PixLite4. It is a really good idea and save an extra dongle.

[bob_moody]

As a side note

If you are using multicast, it will broadcast across both nics.

 

You can add a static route that will contain the multicast traffic to the nic you are using for E1.31 traffic ...

 

route -p add 224.0.0.0 mask 240.0.0.0 <ip of correct pc interface to use> metric 5

 

The "p" in the route command will make this a persistant route meaning you dont have to set it everytime.

 

Bob

Edited March 16, 2015 by bob_moody