• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

iMediaTouch technical help - pregnant pauses

It might simplify - and speed up - your protected LAN if you made your gateway machine a DNS server for the protected LAN. That would eliminate the need for an updated hosts file on each system. If the protected LAN is on a different IP network than the WAN, you won't need to worry about your automation machines getting to the WAN.

An easier way might be simply put a gateway/router between your gateway machine and the protected LAN. Plug the WAN port into your gateway machine, and a LAN port into your LAN switch. You can still get to the gateway machine, but you'll likely speed up and simplify things on the LAN side without spending much money.
 
VoiceOfReason said:
Yeah - holy sticker shock Batman! The 2.6.x to 3.x upgrade pricing was too much for us to swallow too. I guess some amount is reasonable to help defray any development costs, but the cost outweighed the benefits. Broadcasters no longer have deep pockets, and broadcast software is typically very expensive. I'm not sure what that'll mean to these companies who serve a tiny market with very specialized software.
Click to expand...

does anyone know what/if the upgrade to the version demo'd at thwe NAB will cost?

SirRoxalot said:
It might simplify - and speed up - your protected LAN if you made your gateway machine a DNS server for the protected LAN. That would eliminate the need for an updated hosts file on each system. If the protected LAN is on a different IP network than the WAN, you won't need to worry about your automation machines getting to the WAN.
Click to expand...

Im curious though; since the host file trumps DNS or WINS, and since my topology never changes, no machines are added/removed, would a DNS server do anything more than just add response time to ip resolution overall?

I'v considered a router between the networks just to have the future option to route machines to the WAN if needed. But it seems like it just adds one more box that could be comprimised to gain access to my on-air machines.
 
aberdeenman said:
Im curious though; since the host file trumps DNS or WINS, and since my topology never changes, no machines are added/removed, would a DNS server do anything more than just add response time to ip resolution overall?

I'v considered a router between the networks just to have the future option to route machines to the WAN if needed. But it seems like it just adds one more box that could be comprimised to gain access to my on-air machines.
Click to expand...

Since the IP stacks are designed to look for a DNS server, I doubt that it would add any latency, and it would eliminate the need for modifications to the hosts file. It would certainly make it simpler to swap out a machine in case of failure. A gateway/router would also simplify port forwarding and other options that would make remote access possible and other services possible, while adding another level of firewall protection for the LAN. Since the WAN side is on a separate private network from the LAN side private network, the odds of being seen - let alone hacked - are very remote.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom