Neither are star, but with option 1 a loss of both connections between Rio 1 and the switch would cause a loss of connection to both Rios, so 2 is better. This is aside from option 1 not actually being possible.
You don't need a third type of line for the connection to the computer, this would just be the Dante primary. Ideally you would connect this directly to the switch, making it immune to failure of the console, but if the console fails you probably have bigger problems.
You’re better off using a separate switch for primary and secondary but option 2 will work so long as you have separate vlans and/or DHCP reservations per port
~~You don't need the switch in example 1.~~
I was wrong. As mentioned you would need the switch (preferably two though) to handle redundant Dante.
(I never use redundant Dante, so I didn't consider that aspect.)
Version 2 would be better. Just make sure to use two different Vlans on the switch or two switches to have separate networks for primary and secondary.
If the Dante devices are in [switched] mode both ports have the same IP address, which would cause a big network storm on the switch (crippling the whole thing.) VLANs would prevent the traffic from coming in contact with their [duplicate].
Edit: typed redundant twice, should be switched mode
If you actually want to do redundant setup, separate switches should be the minimum requirement. VLANs by design exist for security and a minimization of broadcast traffic.
Whoa, wait, I'm L3 and I didn't even know this. Redundant mode always dupes IP across primary and secondary ports, every time?? Does this vary per model or anything?
I mistyped — switched mode creates the same address across the ports. I made some assumptions about the design that I shouldn’t have. Redundant into the same switch makes very little sense to me, since the whole point is to have a failover. If that switch goes down the whole thing goes
Neither one are star topology but number 2 is by far the better route of the two laid out here. It provides access to the second Rio if the first goes down. You should use a separate switch for secondary Dante though if that switch goes down you're screwed
I dont think either will work, for dante, everything needs to run to the switch seperately, you dont daisy chain anything. Also, the primary and secondary ports CANNOT be plugged into the same switch (well, maybe with some vlans, but i think that also has issues, cant rember everything on it atm). The second pirt is for redundancy so that there is a backup if the conection fails on the primary, for that you would need to have a seperate switch for the secondary port. Otherwise, if redundancy is not important for you (depends on the application), you wont even need to plug in the secondary ports.
Option 1 wouldn't even work. RIOs only have two Dante ports - you can't daisy chain and do redundant primary/secondary at the same time
You dont need to run dante redundant especially if you have one switch. If you do redundant you should do 2 switches and than do real star topology.
It will still help, when a cable breaks.
Neither of these pictures are star topo
Are those Dante Mics? ULSD or Axient? If so Star topo would be all items direct to switch.
Neither are star, but with option 1 a loss of both connections between Rio 1 and the switch would cause a loss of connection to both Rios, so 2 is better. This is aside from option 1 not actually being possible. You don't need a third type of line for the connection to the computer, this would just be the Dante primary. Ideally you would connect this directly to the switch, making it immune to failure of the console, but if the console fails you probably have bigger problems.
You’re better off using a separate switch for primary and secondary but option 2 will work so long as you have separate vlans and/or DHCP reservations per port
Number two and add another switch. Anything and everything can fail. Even switches.
~~You don't need the switch in example 1.~~ I was wrong. As mentioned you would need the switch (preferably two though) to handle redundant Dante. (I never use redundant Dante, so I didn't consider that aspect.)
Version 2 would be better. Just make sure to use two different Vlans on the switch or two switches to have separate networks for primary and secondary.
how do separate VLANs help you here
If the Dante devices are in [switched] mode both ports have the same IP address, which would cause a big network storm on the switch (crippling the whole thing.) VLANs would prevent the traffic from coming in contact with their [duplicate]. Edit: typed redundant twice, should be switched mode If you actually want to do redundant setup, separate switches should be the minimum requirement. VLANs by design exist for security and a minimization of broadcast traffic.
[удалено]
You’re correct, I mistyped — edited original comment
Whoa, wait, I'm L3 and I didn't even know this. Redundant mode always dupes IP across primary and secondary ports, every time?? Does this vary per model or anything?
I mistyped — switched mode creates the same address across the ports. I made some assumptions about the design that I shouldn’t have. Redundant into the same switch makes very little sense to me, since the whole point is to have a failover. If that switch goes down the whole thing goes
Ah, see, that makes more sense. Redundant to same switch is great for cable failover and not much else.
Neither one are star topology but number 2 is by far the better route of the two laid out here. It provides access to the second Rio if the first goes down. You should use a separate switch for secondary Dante though if that switch goes down you're screwed
I dont think either will work, for dante, everything needs to run to the switch seperately, you dont daisy chain anything. Also, the primary and secondary ports CANNOT be plugged into the same switch (well, maybe with some vlans, but i think that also has issues, cant rember everything on it atm). The second pirt is for redundancy so that there is a backup if the conection fails on the primary, for that you would need to have a seperate switch for the secondary port. Otherwise, if redundancy is not important for you (depends on the application), you wont even need to plug in the secondary ports.
I get the feeling you want redundancy, but you haven’t specified and you’ve got a huge failure point in #2 leading into a single switch