<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<rss version="2.0"
		xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
		xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
		xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
		xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"

			>

	<channel>
		<title>Cycling 74  &#187;  Topic: Several devices listening to the same udp port?</title>
		<atom:link href="http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/several-devices-listening-to-the-same-udp-port/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/several-devices-listening-to-the-same-udp-port/feed</link>
		<description></description>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:59:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<generator>http://bbpress.org/?v=2.2.4</generator>
		<language></language>

		
														
					
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/several-devices-listening-to-the-same-udp-port/#post-66556</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[Several devices listening to the same udp port?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/several-devices-listening-to-the-same-udp-port/#post-66556</link>
					<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>Wetterberg</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>so I&#8217;m building a series of patches that speak OSC in a clever way. Right now I&#8217;m using [udpreceive 8000] for each patch, but the problem is that I would get the typical &#8220;there&#8217;s already something bound to port 8000&#8243; when opening a second instance.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d like the equivalent of having several [udpreceive 8000], except without locking down the port number. Does that make sense? </p>
<p>cheers.</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

			
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/several-devices-listening-to-the-same-udp-port/#post-239542</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[Re: Several devices listening to the same udp port?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/several-devices-listening-to-the-same-udp-port/#post-239542</link>
					<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:31:01 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>broc</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>I&#8217;m using the same udpreceive port in multiple patcher/device instances without any problem.</p>
<p>Can you give an example to reproduce the binding conflict?</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

			
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/several-devices-listening-to-the-same-udp-port/#post-239543</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[Re: Several devices listening to the same udp port?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/several-devices-listening-to-the-same-udp-port/#post-239543</link>
					<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:35:19 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>Wetterberg</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>hm.. Got maxforlive? sounds like you do &#8211; Open and edit a maxforlive patch with udpreceive in it, and comms to the patch will break. The multitude of open/closed/loaded patches means it&#8217;s kind of hard to provide a step-by-step&#8230;</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

					
		
	</channel>
	</rss>

