You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think that strictly speaking we would have to announce the out-of-band interfaces and bind to them in order not to violate the existing NMOS. I can also see how that leads to increased complexity and potential confusion, so in my opinion it is a very valid discussion topic.
This is now an issue in IS-05 - AMWA-TV/is-05#70 - since binding to multiple interfaces in IS-04 probably then requires that we represent the multiple redundant interfaces with multiple 'legs' in IS-05.
This may be more of a question for IS-04.
The example in Core models - IS-04 highlights - Senders shows
"interface_bindings": [ "eth0" ]
.Does it make sense for Senders with transports like WebSocket or MQTT to be bound to a particular interface?
If so, in an out-of-band configuration (separate media and control networks) which network would WebSocket/MQTT flows be likely to use?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: