[Icecast] Push relay from nicecast with icecast2?

Chuck Tellechea chuckt at tellechea.org
Wed Mar 23 10:55:13 PST 2005


Dan,

Thanks for responding.

On Mar 23, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Dan Stowell wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 01:26:59 +1000, Geoff Shang 
> <geoff at hitsandpieces.net> wrote:
>> Chuck Tellechea wrote:
>>
>>> What I'm thinking of doing now, is to running an instance of either 
>>> icecast1
>>> or shoutcast, on the datacenter server, to receive the 'pushed' 
>>> broadcast
>>> from the Nicecast running on the G5 at my customer's office/studio.
>>> Additionally running an instance of icecast2, on the same datacenter 
>>> server
>>> (and on another port(s)) to stream the archived mp3 content.
>>
>> It is true that Icecast2 can't do push relaying, but I don't 
>> understand why
>> you need it.  If Nicecast is going to be pushing the content to you, 
>> what's
>> the problem?  Maybe *I'm* missing something.
>
> Nicecast uses Icecast to do its broadcasting, so it can't do anything
> that Icecast can't do. So I don't really understand either.
>
> Could you solve the DHCP problem by getting your customer set up with
> dynDNS? Wouldn't that immediately solve the problem, meaning that
> people could listen directly to the stream coming from his box?
>

Well, the problem here is that bandwidth (hopefully) will become an 
issue and that is why we need to relay to a server with a FAT pipe at a 
datacenter. Regardless, he'd have to setup port forwarding, or a DMZ, 
on his router/NAT device behind his cable modem, and such would be 
beyond his skills. I'd need to do that and then manage it as well. 
Much, much, simpler for him just to send a stream to the datacenter 
server and have that server 'proxy' it to the world. I do that now with 
shoutcast and nicecast for my Buddhist temple; however, that's only one 
stream. There's going to be a number of separate streams to different 
content and bitrates for this customer. And though, I presume, I could 
run multiple instances of shoutcast on the same box, on different 
ports, such would be more of a pain to manage than one daemon process 
handling all of them; therefore my interest in icecast2.

Thanks again :)


> Dan
>
> -- 
> http://www.mcld.co.uk
> _______________________________________________
> Icecast mailing list
> Icecast at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast
>
--
"Living is easy with eyes closed;
         misunderstanding all you see...."
                 John Lennon

         Chuck Tellechea



More information about the Icecast mailing list