PDA

View Full Version : Request: How do you set-up Unicast E1.31 for an E68x?



Jeff Millard
04-02-2013, 07:29 PM
Looking for the basics to get started. What are the IP's used, how do you choose them etc... Any info you could provide would be greatly appreciated. If you know of a good reference that could help to make it all a little clearer that would be a big help.

Thank you in advance...

Jeff

budude
04-02-2013, 07:32 PM
You use the same IP that you use to configure it - that's it... Most folks (myself included) put them on a separate network - all mine are 192.168.2.x. For no real reason, I put them at 192.168.2.71->76. It really doesn't matter much what IPs you choose. If you are planning to put them on your home network then you should put them outside the range of your DHCP server. I think my gateway router supports 192.168.1.50-100 so 101-200 could be used for your static IPs (for example).

jstjohnz
04-02-2013, 10:24 PM
I guess that wasn't covered in the docs. Bur Brian is correct, you can use any IP you want, as long as it matches what the sender is configured to send to. Unless there's a specific reason to change, I would just stick with whatever you're using now. With Unicast you don't need to worry about flooding your network with E1.31 traffic since it's all point-to-point. You just have to make sure that the sender is configured to send each universe to the IP address where it's needed, and with Unicast you can't have 2 controllers using the same universe since most senders only allow you to specify one destination address per universe. This can make pixel addressing a bit more tricky because you do not have the option of addressing seamlessly from one controller to the next. In general each controller will start at channel 1 of the 'next' universe in line.

You can experiment using Sacnview, Sacnview senders have a check box to select Unicast mode.

budude
04-02-2013, 10:52 PM
You can experiment using Sacnview, Sacnview senders have a check box to select Unicast mode.

Unfortunately the 'receiving' tools on SACNView all appear to only use multicast - or at least I haven't found the flag to enable unicast...

jstjohnz
04-02-2013, 11:09 PM
I think E1.31/SACN was primarily intended to be a multicast protocol, unicast seems to be an afterthought. IIRC there is exactly one sentence in the E1.31 spec that mentions unicast.

aaron1
04-03-2013, 12:38 AM
So, when I set up my sequencing software, do I point every universe to the controller where it's located? For example, let's say I have my E682 at 192.168.2.71, as budude uses, per above. And let's say I want universes 1-12 driven from that particular controller.

In multicast, my sequencing software knows that it needs to send out the traffic for the above scenario to 239.255.0.1 - 239.255.0.12.

For unicast, does each universe get sent on its own IP address, as in multicast? Or are multiple universes transmitted to a single IP address? In other words, in my sequencing software, do I just tell it that universes 1-12 should all get delivered to 192.168.2.71? Or do I need to manually enter 12 different universe numbers?

budude
04-03-2013, 12:55 AM
The universe number is contained within the E1.31 packet format (2 bytes) so you just have to send whatever universe numbers to the specified IP address. Because of this you don't need to specify different universe numbers for different controllers - you could theoretically use universe 1-12 for all of your controllers.

You raise a good point though - I'm not sure how some of the sequencers handle this - I know the Vixen 2x plug-in supports either unicast or multicast and I think LOR does as well.

aaron1
04-03-2013, 01:13 AM
LOR handles unicast. I didn't realize that the universe number actually becomes part of the e1.31 data. Thanks for the clarification. Will save me some trial-and-error time.

jstjohnz
04-03-2013, 01:47 AM
Any sender that supports unicast should allow you to attach an IP address to each outgoing universe.

Jeff Millard
04-03-2013, 05:48 AM
I've seen 10.10.10.10 mentioned as having some significance for Unicast, is that just a deliberate intent to stay away from the network traffic? Also, is there any reason the IP addressing couldn't stay the same as that used for Multicast? (in an attempt to keep the same setup in the sequencing software? ...and yes... It's LOR... Sorry)

Jeff

livinglightshows
09-12-2014, 12:53 AM
Jim says the following in his post: "with Unicast you can't have 2 controllers using the same universe"

Budude says the following in his post: " you don't need to specify different universe numbers for different controllers - you could theoretically use universe 1-12 for all of your controllers"

Aren't these conflicting statements? nobody pointed out this contradiction in this thread and it is an old thread... so which is it? can I use universe numbers 1 - 12 on each of my unicast configured e682's?





I guess that wasn't covered in the docs. Bur Brian is correct, you can use any IP you want, as long as it matches what the sender is configured to send to. Unless there's a specific reason to change, I would just stick with whatever you're using now. With Unicast you don't need to worry about flooding your network with E1.31 traffic since it's all point-to-point. You just have to make sure that the sender is configured to send each universe to the IP address where it's needed, and with Unicast you can't have 2 controllers using the same universe since most senders only allow you to specify one destination address per universe. This can make pixel addressing a bit more tricky because you do not have the option of addressing seamlessly from one controller to the next. In general each controller will start at channel 1 of the 'next' universe in line.

You can experiment using Sacnview, Sacnview senders have a check box to select Unicast mode.

angus40
09-12-2014, 01:03 AM
In a unicast config/setup the use of a unicast ip trumps universe #s the unicast ip is like assigning a unique id # . so both are correct

livinglightshows
09-12-2014, 01:17 AM
They can't both be correct. Jim states you cannot recycle universe numbers even if they are on separate controllers (hence separate IP's). So it does not sound like the IP trumps unicast numbers. Common sense would tell me that each controller can use the same universe number since they each have unique IP addresses. However with Jim's statement and the fact that in Vixen 3 controller configuration you cannot re-use universe numbers even on a different controller with a different Unicast IP address, it makes me think my common sense thinking is wrong. Perhaps that universe is higher level than the IP address to the player even though a controller should technically not care since it does not "see" traffic to other controllers anyway.






In a unicast config/setup the use of a unicast ip trumps universe #s the unicast ip is like assigning a unique id # . so both are correct

angus40
09-12-2014, 01:23 AM
Sorry , I missed it if you mentioned vixen in your original thread as I have no clue there .

Maybe the Dev team is workin on a fix for that !

But unicast in hls work as you suspect and correctly

assign the ip an don worry about universe #s .....HLS ... life is Good ! :)

livinglightshows
09-12-2014, 11:25 AM
I am pretty sure that you are not supposed to re-use universe numbers even in Unicast modes on Controllers with different IP's but would like confirmation of that from Jim or someone else. If a sequencer supports it then I think it is is the sequencer that is not conforming to the standard...

budude
09-12-2014, 11:49 AM
You absolutely can use the same universe numbers in unicast - the different controllers (in unicast mode) don't communicate or "see" each other's traffic. The question may be more on if the sequencer side can handle controlling two controllers using the same universe (as I said above). That may be why you can't do it...

angus40
09-12-2014, 12:10 PM
This sequencer I believe conforms and in my view improves the standard in most cases , :)

http://i62.tinypic.com/2dk0268.png

jchuchla
09-12-2014, 04:31 PM
I just caught this thread and see a lot of "learned by experimenting" information which is a bit less than correct. So I thought I'd chime in and make a few points.

Multicasting is in fact the preferred transmission method intended by the standard.
It is easier to configure and future extensions of this protocol suite will go down this path even more. Unicast support was added to the protocol at the last minute before it was standardized because there were many networks at the time that would not handle multicast well.

Each unique set of data must use a unique universe number.
This applies even if you're using multicast. You should not use the same universe number to send two different streams to two different receivers. depending on the network, and the receiving equipment, there is a chance that more than one device will receive what it thinks to be the same stream. Yes it "works" to use the same universe number to different unicast ips on a network with switches (as opposed to hubs) to a e682. But there's no guarantee that some other device you're using won't just use the data anyhow if it somehow received it. Not all Ethernet devices use an IP address to steer data. If you're using a network that includes hubs, or switches in a port mirror mode the traffic intended for a certain device may actually reach another device.

The komby e1.31 to RF code (komby sandwich) for example, will process every packet it receives regardless of it's intended destination, and if it sees the universe number it's configured for, it will accept and use that packet, even if it's supposed to be going to another IP address.

Another example would be if you had two sACN recievers with the same IP address. Yeah you're not supposed to do this, but most of the hardware we use will actually allow it. They'll both get the traffic.

So best practice is that each unique "stream" of data should have it's own universe number. Besides, you have 63,999 available universe numbers. There's no good reason not to use them.


Most Streaming ACN devices used in this community are not fully e1.31 compliant
There is only one device that I'm aware of that's commonly used in this community that complies with section 8.3 of the e1.31 standard. This effectively turns multicast into broadcast This results in the network flooding condition many users here complain about. Technically the WizNet chip supports it, but neither the e68x nor any arduino Ethernet based products actually use the feature.

jstjohnz
09-12-2014, 04:57 PM
Jim says the following in his post: "with Unicast you can't have 2 controllers using the same universe"

Budude says the following in his post: " you don't need to specify different universe numbers for different controllers - you could theoretically use universe 1-12 for all of your controllers"

Aren't these conflicting statements? nobody pointed out this contradiction in this thread and it is an old thread... so which is it? can I use universe numbers 1 - 12 on each of my unicast configured e682's?

With Unicast, you can in fact have every controller set for universe numbers 1-12. Each Unicast Universe contains a Universe number AND a controller IP address. The combination must be unique. Universe #1 sent to 192.168.1.206 is different that Universe #1 sent to 192.168.1.207.

*IF* the sending software allows you to broadcast the same 512-channel group with more than 1 Universe#/IP Address combination, then you could in effect send the same universe to multiple
controllers. Whether it's common to allow this I don't know.

jchuchla
09-12-2014, 05:03 PM
With Unicast, you can in fact have every controller set for universe numbers 1-12. Each Unicast Universe contains a Universe number AND a controller IP address. The combination must be unique. Universe #1 sent to 192.168.1.206 is different that Universe #1 sent to 192.168.1.207.

That does work for a e682, on a switched network. But it's not guaranteed to not be received elsewhere as well. An addressless node may also be on the same network and may also respond to the same universe number.

budude
09-12-2014, 09:32 PM
Sorry - but I think you're really confusing folks a bit... The OP asked about unicast with E682 and then it veered to universe numbers using unicast with E682. That has been answered - yes you can but there may be reasons why you don't want to... How does an 'addressless node' (whatever that is) play into this? What would be a scenario that fits this in the world of what we do here? An E682 would never be addressless - it will have either an assigned static IP, assigned DHCP IP or a private network IP of 169.xxx but it will always have an address... For what we do here you should *always* configure your E68x nodes with a static IP regardless of using unicast or multicast - you still need to configure the thing somehow and having a known IP makes it easy to do.

livinglightshows
09-12-2014, 10:31 PM
FWIW, Vixen 3 will not allow you to use a Universe number more than once, EVEN if it is to another IP address using Unicast.

EBecker
01-05-2015, 10:49 PM
So if in lor I can only specify one ip per universe in unicast mode?

So what should I do besides sandevices e1.31 to get more than 12 universes? I will have 1150 pixels this year, and 50 dmx dumb pixel channels. I could see myself getting over the 2040 pixel count by the following year, and don't like to waste stuff. So what should I do?

jchuchla
01-05-2015, 11:00 PM
If you're sending one universe to more than one destination you should be using multicast.

Simple, If you're adding more pixels then you need to add more controllers.


--Jon Chuchla--

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EBecker
01-05-2015, 11:01 PM
Right, but what happens if I want to add pixel 2041?

jchuchla
01-05-2015, 11:03 PM
You need more controllers


--Jon Chuchla--

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EBecker
01-05-2015, 11:05 PM
But I thought e1.31 / sandevices unicast maxed out at 2040 pixels? Am I missing something?

jchuchla
01-05-2015, 11:47 PM
That's Per controller.
SACN (e1.31) supports 63,999 universes. That's 32,767,488 channels.


--Jon Chuchla--

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk