2012-08-26, 11:49
afaik xbmc binds to 0.0.0.0 which means - all interfaces.
2013-09-08, 17:40
Hello,
Just a question,
I have a project with to vlan for XBMC.
The first is the local lan with my NAS.
The second is a multicast network for the TV.
Is that possible to have 2 virtual network interface ?
I will use a Rapsberry
Many thanks for your help.
Thierry
Just a question,
I have a project with to vlan for XBMC.
The first is the local lan with my NAS.
The second is a multicast network for the TV.
Is that possible to have 2 virtual network interface ?
I will use a Rapsberry
Many thanks for your help.
Thierry
2014-01-26, 20:31
I actually have a use case where it would be very helpful to bind to only one interface:
My two sons are sharing a multiseats Linux computer (only one box, cpu, ram, but two screens/keyboards/mouses/audio cards).
They both are able to run their own xbmc instance, but only one is able to access/share/broadcast his content through upnp (only the first instance started is visible from the network). I'm considerering isolating the process using lxc/cgroups but it is a little bit overkill for the purpose.
Having the ability to bind one process to the real hardware eth0, and the other one to an alias (like eth0:0 would do the trick)
My two sons are sharing a multiseats Linux computer (only one box, cpu, ram, but two screens/keyboards/mouses/audio cards).
They both are able to run their own xbmc instance, but only one is able to access/share/broadcast his content through upnp (only the first instance started is visible from the network). I'm considerering isolating the process using lxc/cgroups but it is a little bit overkill for the purpose.
Having the ability to bind one process to the real hardware eth0, and the other one to an alias (like eth0:0 would do the trick)
2014-11-07, 08:51
I am having a similar issue with upnp. My kodi box has hamachi on it and kodi always uses the hamachi ip when streaming on the local lan. This causes all media to be listed on upnp but unplayable.
Local lan is 192.168.0.X if I open a upnp stream from kodi it sends a 25.X.X.X url. It seams like kodi should append the ip that matches the interface receiving the request not just the first one.
Local lan is 192.168.0.X if I open a upnp stream from kodi it sends a 25.X.X.X url. It seams like kodi should append the ip that matches the interface receiving the request not just the first one.
2014-11-16, 21:14
What if you want to have multiple cards and bind to both to increase throughput on a wired environment.. I think that would do it
2016-10-22, 22:15
I think this issue deserves another look as Kodi can be run in Android boxes that have more than one network interface. Here's an example: many Android devices have two network interfaces, wireless and wired. If the first interface is the wireless, and the second is wired and if someone is using an Ethernet cable, then Kodi will bind to the wireless interface resulting in problems accessing content if the wireless interface is not configured to be used. A workaround would be to turn off the wireless interface in the Android device, but that's not always an option depending on the Android box. If Kodi has an option to instruct it to bind to the correct interface, the issue is solved. I know Kodi is designed to be easy to use, but a menu interface to choose the network interface is not far fetched considering how Kodi allows you to choose the sound interface already.
2016-10-22, 22:46
thanks for bumping a 6 year old thread
@mveras1972
in short:
applications do not bind to specific interfaces
when kodi needs to listen for incoming connections, it either binds to 0.0.0.0 ( :: ) which means "listen on all configured interfaces" or 127.0.0.1 ( ::1 ) (localhost)
when kodi needs to access content, it's your OS job to decide how to access it (taking into account your routing table), which configured source ip address to use and to which router (if any) to route the request.
if you need to manualy disable your (not configured) wifi interface in order to make kodi work via wired, you have an utterly broken firmware, you should contact your box vendor, it has nothing to do with kodi.
@mveras1972
in short:
applications do not bind to specific interfaces
when kodi needs to listen for incoming connections, it either binds to 0.0.0.0 ( :: ) which means "listen on all configured interfaces" or 127.0.0.1 ( ::1 ) (localhost)
when kodi needs to access content, it's your OS job to decide how to access it (taking into account your routing table), which configured source ip address to use and to which router (if any) to route the request.
if you need to manualy disable your (not configured) wifi interface in order to make kodi work via wired, you have an utterly broken firmware, you should contact your box vendor, it has nothing to do with kodi.
2019-06-17, 10:18
I'm sorry to bump this old thread but I think I have something to say about why it would be good to allow Kodi (in particular) to be able to bind to a particular adapter (only).
I've been chasing a problem for the last two or three years with losing Kodi from my LAN control points after some idle. If I leave my foobar2000 player idle for few minutes (5 or so) while a Kodi instance was selected for output and then try to play a file, foobar fails and drives me to select a valid output. Kodi is still there and if I choose it again then it plays fine again, for as long as I don't leave the player for 5 minutes idle (not playing anything).
Eventually these days I nailed it down to the fact that I have two paths to the server where Kodi is installed - normal 1Gbps link and another, 10Gbps link. Installing Kodi in a VM with just one adapter seems to so far resolve the issue even if I leave the player idle for 10-15 min.
I guess Kodi switches from time to time the adapters or just announces itself in the network at both interfaces and control points can choose (after some periodic timeout) to refresh the renderer or I don't know, which causes the issue with some control points as with foobar in this case. Installed in a VM with one adapter resolves the issue.
So I think this is one valid argument why Kodi needs to be a bit more flexible in options network-wise. The result is I don't use Kodi but another foobar instance with UPNP server component because in a VM I wan't less resources wasted for this. Using a VM on my server is the only way to make things stable now. So it's not just Kodi that suffers from this. But Kodi should be somehow more engaged to make things right for more people and this is a "home" scenario, not some enterprise, because I read some arguments in this respect above.
I've been chasing a problem for the last two or three years with losing Kodi from my LAN control points after some idle. If I leave my foobar2000 player idle for few minutes (5 or so) while a Kodi instance was selected for output and then try to play a file, foobar fails and drives me to select a valid output. Kodi is still there and if I choose it again then it plays fine again, for as long as I don't leave the player for 5 minutes idle (not playing anything).
Eventually these days I nailed it down to the fact that I have two paths to the server where Kodi is installed - normal 1Gbps link and another, 10Gbps link. Installing Kodi in a VM with just one adapter seems to so far resolve the issue even if I leave the player idle for 10-15 min.
I guess Kodi switches from time to time the adapters or just announces itself in the network at both interfaces and control points can choose (after some periodic timeout) to refresh the renderer or I don't know, which causes the issue with some control points as with foobar in this case. Installed in a VM with one adapter resolves the issue.
So I think this is one valid argument why Kodi needs to be a bit more flexible in options network-wise. The result is I don't use Kodi but another foobar instance with UPNP server component because in a VM I wan't less resources wasted for this. Using a VM on my server is the only way to make things stable now. So it's not just Kodi that suffers from this. But Kodi should be somehow more engaged to make things right for more people and this is a "home" scenario, not some enterprise, because I read some arguments in this respect above.
2019-06-17, 12:02
This is a feature requests subforum, right? Noone is asking (forcing) anything.
I'm sharing a use-case where this would be useful. I don't have routing issues. Please read carefully. It's issue with the fact when two or more networks exist in a machine and those networks connect the two machines in question.
Anyway, a hacking workaround is to use forcebindIP program which seems to work, which just proves my point.
I'm witnessing a great deal of arrogance in this forum towards some requests beyond my understanding, I read the forum for some years now. Devs could just tell "we don't have the time, the motivation etc..." instead of "it's your fault", "it's not needed", "a small minority of users might eventually need that".
Thanks.
I'm sharing a use-case where this would be useful. I don't have routing issues. Please read carefully. It's issue with the fact when two or more networks exist in a machine and those networks connect the two machines in question.
Anyway, a hacking workaround is to use forcebindIP program which seems to work, which just proves my point.
I'm witnessing a great deal of arrogance in this forum towards some requests beyond my understanding, I read the forum for some years now. Devs could just tell "we don't have the time, the motivation etc..." instead of "it's your fault", "it's not needed", "a small minority of users might eventually need that".
Thanks.
2019-06-17, 12:37
I can't edit my posts so... just to add.
If it's so hard to implement this I'd perfectly understand. But I read all over the place how unneeded this is and trying in every way to make people believe they are wrong to request it one way or another. Or because this was a "home" media app people would get "confused" byt such options which is the most flawed argument I've ever heard. There are already many options that are equally technical in nature. It doesn't need to be in the GUI even, a base config file with base options would do it.
If it's so hard to implement this I'd perfectly understand. But I read all over the place how unneeded this is and trying in every way to make people believe they are wrong to request it one way or another. Or because this was a "home" media app people would get "confused" byt such options which is the most flawed argument I've ever heard. There are already many options that are equally technical in nature. It doesn't need to be in the GUI even, a base config file with base options would do it.
2019-06-17, 19:26
I apologise if my answer came off rude, that wasn't intended.
Let me try again.
The fact that this feature request thread is years old and there are only a few responses already gives a high indication that it is a niche case.
How many people really have dual homed/multipath htpcs and how many of them use in in combination with other software where this causes issues?
I'm not saying I don't see some value in it, there is just so much other, more important stuff to work on and how way too few devs.
Patches most welcome
Let me try again.
The fact that this feature request thread is years old and there are only a few responses already gives a high indication that it is a niche case.
How many people really have dual homed/multipath htpcs and how many of them use in in combination with other software where this causes issues?
I'm not saying I don't see some value in it, there is just so much other, more important stuff to work on and how way too few devs.
Patches most welcome
2019-06-17, 20:13
Ok, thanks. This is a more welcome answer. I just shared another use-case. Telling the truth you are right, I didn't expect much, but this was a years old on-going issue for me, revisiting it from time to time. ForceBindIP works but I decided to use foobar2000 with upnp server component in a VM for the music. Yes, the issue exists for other DLNA renderers (foobar2000) too, that's why using in a VM because forcebindIP has other side effects sometimes.
As to how many people have dual homed PCs (htpcs).. I believe many. 10Gbps is much more affordable nowadays, especially if moving big movies etc. Or using dual 1Gbps. I guess there is some "threshold" on the number of people who have to chime in in threads like this to draw some more attention. Given me, I had this for years and I just dared to register and write about that.
As to how many people have dual homed PCs (htpcs).. I believe many. 10Gbps is much more affordable nowadays, especially if moving big movies etc. Or using dual 1Gbps. I guess there is some "threshold" on the number of people who have to chime in in threads like this to draw some more attention. Given me, I had this for years and I just dared to register and write about that.
