On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Len Ovens <l...@ovenwerks.net> wrote: > Where I see your info as being useful though, is if I choose to send > data (which could be varying sized packets) I may still wish to set > the data packet size to a fixed size depending on what is left from > audio. The whole network end of things needs to be decoupled from > real time.
That last sentence is a bit contradicting. You want to send audio over network, you want the audio to be near realtime. But you want to decouple network from realtime... (In math: A==B && B==C && A!=C) > To be honest, I have spent a lot less time thinking about the network > traffic part of things than the audio part of things. The reason for > this is that the use cases for allowing network through our line is > small. As has already been commented, a desktop can have a second NIC > and the laptop generally has wireless. The main usecase for network > through the same IF might be radio work where one might have a SIP > connection (phone line) going through net. (anyone see others?) > Because the AI has a second NIC and an OS, it should be possible to > set up the SIP session on that box. There is a widespread use-case for audio and non-audio network traffic on the same segment: audio and control/midi messages on the same segment. And you don't want your fader moves to interrupt your audio. And your current thinking seems to be about using a dedicated network-link between PC and audio-interface with a possible chain-link to other interfaces. But what about a dedicated network (with switch) to connect multiple PCs and audio-interfaces? Then you have to deal with lots more channels, thus lots more realtime data and also lots more control-messages. Have fun, Arnold PS: Maybe this question sound foolish: Why not AVB / open AVB?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev