ltully Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Hello all, My old router used to let me use Capture and Light converse using my Tiger Touch via art net. Just started using a new router and have no such luck. Both bits of soft wear windows and mac aren't receiving any signal from my desk. Is there a particular way to configure the router? Thanks in advance Liam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkiDonki Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 It might be a good idea to tell us which router you are using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ltully Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Sorry, Netgear dg8346G Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadhippy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 could it be an ip adress issue? some router manufacters use 10.0.something or other,others 198.168.more.numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niclights Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Fairly sure that router uses 192.168.0.1 as gateway. First check both console and mac are in this range (192.168.0.x where x > 1 and different on each). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossmck Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Some Art-Net kit requires the network 2.0.0.0/8 (why, I have no idea as this doesn't comply with RFC1918) a revision to the Art-Net standard allowed 10.0.0.0/8 and whilst some networks will work on 192.168.0.0/24 not all will, so it might be worth trying to to change the router to use a 10.x.x.x IP address. For what it's worth I used to have a DG834GT and it passed Art-Net just fine. What was the old router ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niclights Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Tiger Touch, LC and Capture will all happily work on the standard private IP subnet ranges including 192.168.x.x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robthirlby Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Ive just had a nasty experience with a brand new out of the box netgear AC1750 route using only the lan ports. It happily passed all normal traffic but seemed to filter any artnet traffic between our ETC board and a PC running resolume. Replacing it port by port with the previous (netgear too) router cured the problem but didnt give me back the 2 man hours I wasted! Ughh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.elsbury Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 Was broadcast storm / flood protection (or similar) enabled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shez Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 Ive just had a nasty experience with a brand new out of the box netgear AC1750 route using only the lan ports. You're far better off using a switch rather than a router. Not all routers play nicely with Artnet, particularly in the 2.x.x.x range as it's an external address range. Switches will switch any range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmeh2 Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 Hi Just to add my 2p really... A lot of routers not only have rubbish throughput but also have annoying firewall rules that block broadcast packets (or high-volume traffic from a single IP) as they think its some kind of DoS attack. You'll also find that port forwarding rules (or lack of) will block all UDP traffic by default. If you suspect it's a firewall or port forwarding issue, disable it entirely and/or put your PC's IP into the router's DMZ so it gets everything regardless of forwarding rules, and see if you can see the Artnet traffic. As Shez says, best to use a switch, and a dumb one at that. Managed switches incur lag and have to be configured properly otherwise it'll start blocking packets due to flood protection. As an aside, the 2.x.x.x subnet range is part of Orange as their Wanadoo (formerly France Telecom) gateway service, you'll find at least one running between 2.0.0.1 and 2.0.0.143. Today it's 2.0.0.24. There isn't actually an issue with using the 2.x range, even on a network that's connected to the internet, unless you frequently hit .fr domains. Internal IPs always mask external ones anyway, which is how we're every BT home hub on the planet can operate at 192.168.1.1 without causing a conflict. All the bestTimmeh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alistermorton Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 As an aside, the 2.x.x.x subnet range is part of Orange as their Wanadoo (formerly France Telecom) gateway service, you'll find at least one running between 2.0.0.1 and 2.0.0.143. Today it's 2.0.0.24. There isn't actually an issue with using the 2.x range, even on a network that's connected to the internet, unless you frequently hit .fr domains. Internal IPs always mask external ones anyway, which is how we're every BT home hub on the planet can operate at 192.168.1.1 without causing a conflict. Although there aren't any 192.168.0.0/16 or 10.0.0.0/8 addresses (or indeed the less frequently used 172.16.0.0/12 range) assigned on the public internet, whereas there are proper, public addresses in the 2.0.0.0/8 range. That's the big difference, and it's why using 2.0.0.0/8 anywhere except on a completely isolated private network is a really bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyro_gearloose Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 Also, if you’re using a phone or tablet you will almost certainly find that they won’t talk to your lighting system. I’m not entirely certain why, but it might be because the phone/tablet knows that 2.x.y.z are public internet addresses and won’t send data to them if it has no internet access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shez Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 Mobile devices seem to increasingly try to be clever by checking for internet access and not connecting if they don't see it. I've experienced that a couple of times with my mobile refusing to connect to a 192.168.x.x access point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timsabre Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 Android or apple? Seen this on Apple but not yet on android. Obviously someone trying to be clever without thinking of all the possible scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.