Media Server and Port Forwarding

Teessider

New Member
I have a BT home hub which in turn connects to a netgear RP614v2 router and then to my Fox T2.

I'm trying to stream from the hummy to other devices. If I run a long lead from the home hub to the hummy then I can do this however when connecting the hummy thru' the netgear router I can't. I forwarded ports on the home hub and netgear to use the webif with no bother but I'm struggling with the streaming.

If anyone could give me some info on how to do this I'd reall appreiate it.

TIA Dave
 

HarveyB

Active Member
EDITED I see BH may have the real answer (crossed my submission). My response below may not apply but just in case I will leave it here.

How have you configured the netgear.
It needs to be on the same IP address range as the BT router.
If I remember rightly the BT uses 192.168.1.254 as its own address and the local network is 192.168.1.nnn (subnet mask 255.255.255.0).
In this case you need to set the Netgear up with:
- DHCP turned off
- gateway address 192.168.1.254(ie the bt router address)
- either give it a fixed address (eg 192.168.1.2) outside the BT hubs DHCP range, I think. Or let is get address via DHCP

Basically you need the BT hub to be the only device handing out ip addresses and all devices within the network one the same ip range (192.168.1.nnn).

In reality I would have thought an ether net switch (eg FS605 or GS605)would have been more appropriate than a second router, unless you have a specific need for a second intelligent router.
Switches don't need any configuration.

Hope this helps.
I don't have access to any of the devices that you are using so can't Beverly specific. But the above principles are general to most home networked.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
OP
T

Teessider

New Member
First of all thank you both for the quick replies.

I've tried the port forwarding at 9000 on both routers without success and I've had a play with thre other router settings as suggested by Harvey, but I don't really understand networking too much.

So I think a switch is the way forward for me if they dont need any configuring.

I take it a swich is just like a splitter and lets all traffic thru' if so I think this would do me fine.
 

Black Hole

May contain traces of nut
In theory, a "switch" (as opposed to a "hub") learns what IP addresses sit on its various nodes and only lets relevant traffic through on each link - but through common misuse I think hubs get called switches too. Anything cheap is unlikely to have the intelligence of a switch and just be a hub in disguise.
 

af123

Administrator
Staff member
but through common misuse I think hubs get called switches too. Anything cheap is unlikely to have the intelligence of a switch and just be a hub in disguise.
I've never seen that - small unmanaged switches are cheap enough these days. One give-away is that a switch can support full-duplex mode whereas a hub cannot, being a shared medium. A cheap switch won't support more advanced features such as cut-through and won't have a fast backplane (i.e. you couldn't run all ports at 100Mb/s at once - that TP-Link has a 200Mb/s backplane) but it's good enough for home use for most people.
 

HarveyB

Active Member
I think BH and AF123 have beaten me to it.

Yes a switch just passes the traffic back and forth as if the devices were connected directly to the router (you BT hub).
It basically allows you to run a single cable from your router and split it into multiple connections.

I'll leave it to others to recommend switches.

I use Netgear gigabit switches at home.

I do use routers as well, but that is so that I can get wifi links all over the house. Switches don't extend wifi coverage!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

Black Hole

May contain traces of nut
I've never seen that - small unmanaged switches are cheap enough these days.
To me, a switch is not a switch unless it switches - ie sends specific packets along specific links according to destination thus avoiding unnecessary traffic on the other links. When all the traffic is sent on all the links, it's just a hub (but it still has plenty to do to merge the traffic coming in on all links and distribute it out again so that the Ethernet clash arbitration works properly). As far as I am concerned, "unmanaged switch" = hub. I only raised it as a point of information.

but it's good enough for home use for most people.
Absolutely. Switching is only needed where the simultaneous traffic between devices on the same local network would overload the network.
 

af123

Administrator
Staff member
To me, a switch is not a switch unless it switches - ie sends specific packets along specific links according to destination thus avoiding unnecessary traffic on the other links.

Agreed, and that's the only way that full-duplex traffic can be supported. With a hub, hosts need to run half-duplex so they can detect collisions (that isn't a function of the hub and hubs don't have any buffers which prevent it from queuing packets before sending them (Collision Avoidance)). That TP-Link is definitely a switch and I have never seen a device claiming to be a switch which is not.

When all the traffic is sent on all the links, it's just a hub

Agreed.

As far as I am concerned, "unmanaged switch" = hub.

Disagree : ) Unmanaged means that it doesn't provide an admin interface for configuration or monitoring.
 
OP
T

Teessider

New Member
What a great bunch you all are with lots of good info and fast too, thanks ever so much.
I think the TP Switch will suit me fine. Connected to it is my Blue-ray player which only uses it for updates my media pc, Apple TV and Hummy. As these are all TV watching devices as a rule I will only use one at a time.
If I can just plug in and go without any configuration then thats the answer I think.
 
Top