Nitrox: Ethernet communications

[huggy591]

Nitrox,

How difficult would it be to replace the serial communications used in the plugin with Ethernet communications? The same encode/decode send/poll would be used, just use a TCP connect to the remote Caddx system via TCP over Ethernet.

I will probably be in a position to test something like this in a week or so. Contact me for more info.

- Gordon

"God is gracious, God is fair. To some He gave brains, to others, hair." - anonymous

"Don't look under the hat."
- Gordon, 2004

[WayneW]

Are you talking about using the Caddx NX-590E TCP add-on module? I was under the impression that used a different encrypted protocol and was only ment for use with a central office monitor. For anybody curious, the NX-590E is about $185 at Worthington.

[Nitrox]

Gordon, I've been anxious to purchase the 590 so that I can expand my code but from what I last heard it doesn't support any of the "automation" calls like the 584 or NX*e (arm/disarm, chime, aux outputs, add-on relay boards, etc). I was going to wait until the firmware supported more than just sending zone alerts. Can you verify a timeframe for that release?

-Nitrox

[huggy591]

Wayne, the 590 module is being enhanced to provide features other than just central office reporting of events, and it is planned to absorb many of the functions now available in other modules such as the 584 (serial) module. Home automation features and hooks will eventually make it into the unit, as well. I'm told the unit will work with the standard encoding currently used by the serial protocol.

I'm a beta tester as I work for a sister company where the developing engineer sits. I'm just waiting for a new code rev to get my module back and hook it into my network for testing new features, one of which is the Ethernet communications. Would be nice to remove the serial cable between my HS machine and the Caddx panel! Now we just need HS to establish a common Ethernet interface (and possibly protocol) for plugins to use.

Lots more to come...

- Gordon

"God is gracious, God is fair. To some He gave brains, to others, hair." - anonymous

"Don't look under the hat."
- Gordon, 2004

[huggy591]

I'm not sure about the release date, Nitrox, but I can tell you it is just about ready for beta testing, which I will be participating in.

- Gordon

PS. Contact me via email, please?

"God is gracious, God is fair. To some He gave brains, to others, hair." - anonymous

"Don't look under the hat."
- Gordon, 2004

[Phil Clayton]

Gordon,
I would be very interested in using the NX-590 interface on my own Caddx Panel Setup. I'll be watching to see how your beta testing progresses.
Phil

[ka7gzr]

I have been using a NX-590e module in my CADDX system for about a year. When I first bought it I could not get it to send me E mail for events because of issues with Windows based servers which my IP provider (Comcast) utilizes. I worked with both people from Caddx(Gladeville,Texas and Boca Raton, Florida) and many firmware and software updates later it now works. I am looking forward to the other functionalities of this promising module to take place.
Jim

[GoFaster]

My 590E responds to http GETs with a rudimentary page. In addition, I see many if not all of the same automation related tabs and options when programming the 590E through DL900.

The Caddx plug-in is nice. Am anxiously awaiting the next release of the plug-in for more zone support.

[huggy591]

Yes, the email issue was a problem with line endings and non-trimmed spaces in the earlier firmware - I actually worked with my systems here and the guys to find and fix that problem (I was sending to Linux here at the house and it worked fine, but Windows/Exchange systems didn't like the added spaces).

- Gordon

"God is gracious, God is fair. To some He gave brains, to others, hair." - anonymous

"Don't look under the hat."
- Gordon, 2004

[MediaStorm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>..Now we just need HS to establish a common Ethernet interface (and possibly protocol) for plugins to use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ethernet is only a physical networking medium. In this particular context it doesn't have a protocol per se.

TCP/IP is a transport layer the sits on top of the Ethernet layer and handles socket connections and getting packets routed to the right places but also lacks a protocol in this context.

Since TCP/IP is a transport layer there are several additional layers available that can be used via this layer. UDP, HTTP, FTP, TELNET, SMTP, POP3, FINGER and etc. all run on top of TCP/IP but alas don't provide any interface in and of themselves but merely provide a standardized way of getting data back and forth.

There are several methods available to convert a serial connection to work over TCP/IP that could also provide an interface to the Caddx hardware which in many cases are less expensive and offer greater features. The Global Cache is a great example. For $169 you get a TCP/IP enabled device that handles serial as well as IR features. Plug your Caddx into the GC serial port and voila you can do essentially the same thing an NX90 does sans remote reporting via TCP/IP to a central station which I am not sure is a huge value to most users here.

My point of all this is do we really need another interface to yet another device that now have to figure out how to get to play nicely with other HA elements or does it make more sense to keep those attributes centralized in HomeSeer (or other HA software) instead?

You want to free up a serial port? Jump over to Ebay and pickup a Lantronix UDS-10 serial to ethernet adapter for $40 or so and install the virtual serial driver for it and configure HomeSeer exactly as you would today for a serial connection and you're done with absolutely no code changes at all. If a serial port is all you're after then a $20 USB to Serial adapter will do the same thing and again requires no code changes.

Set up an HS event to email you and you have essentially the same capabilities the NX590 adds (again minus the remote central monitoring transport).

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about with the 590. Central monitoring via a telephone interface has many less variables involved and in the end is probably much more reliable.

It would be a shame if your house burned down because your ISP had a problem or a router between you and the central station went offline or your DSL router crashed and etc. I'd imagine that the NX would fall back to a telephone connection in the event of connectivity problems but that adds an additional delay in reporting time as well. The Internet is inherently unreliable and is subject to a huge number of variables that can affect performance and even the ability to communicate at all.

I can see where remote central reporting is a great idea if you are a central provider as your costs would be greatly reduced and you could add a large number of subscribers at very little cost. But as a consumer you have to stop and ask yourself if you really want your central station to add another 10,000 subscribers or not.

Just because the NX590 has an ethernet interface and TCP/IP connectivity doesn't mean that the system is any easier to develop for vs. developing for a serial connection. Both methods are about the same overall but in the case of using the NX590 as the interface to the NX the developer would take on the additional work of providing the extra development required to support BOTH serial and TCP/IP vs running serial over TCP/IP using a device built for that purpose that requires NO code changes at all.

Maybe I am completely missing something here but I'm confused about why everyone thinks the NX590 is such a big deal.

Do you really need yet another web interface to your Caddx to do the same things you can do now via HomeSeer and Dave's excellent work? Is it important to you that the Caddx sends you an email instead of HomeSeer?

Ethernet and TCP/IP are merely transport layers (a serial connection is also a transport layer in this application). Just because you have TCP/IP via Ethernet doesn't mean it is any easier to interface with the Caddx or HomeSeer at all and in many ways have the potential to decrease reliability overall.

It's much more reliable to go from your serial port directly to the NX vs. going to a hub or router and then back to the NX590 which in turn is then connected to the NX backbone. Ethernet in this case doubles the number of cables and also doubles the number of devices the signal has to go through (assuming you have your PC connected to your hub and the hub is also connected to the NX590 which will be the most typical configuration). How is that any better than what we have today?

[jhisr]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>MediaStorm writes:
Jump over to Ebay and pickup a Lantronix UDS-10 serial to ethernet adapter for $40 or so <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to butt in on this thread but have you got a link for the $40 Lantronix? Ebay has one listed for $100 and the best price I've seen elsewhere is $120. At $40 a pop I'd pick up a few of them in a heartbeat. They work great.

Joe
HomeSeer Rocks!

[huggy591]

Mediastorm, you have some excellent arguements. However, that does not stop the market from demanding and suppliers from delivering new technologies that reduce cost and increase throughput.

From a reliability standpoint, the Internet still has quite a way to go to match POTS, but it is getting there in many areas, mostly MANs. Witness more and more companies buying VPN services instead of point-to-point WAN links - the cost/risk ratio is acceptable as providers have put together more reliable networks. Remember, Inet rides the POTS networks - or in some cases, the other way around. And I work from my home for a very large company that uses those services 24x7.

As far as using the term "protocol" with regard to HS and Ethernet, I would just like to see the same capabilities we now use with X10 and other systems able to ride on Ethernet. As more housing seems to be using Ethernet as a standard backbone communications system that certainly has bandwidth for more devices on the local home LAN, it makes sense to hook more systems into it. You'll recall that the home continues to be a battlefield for HA systems and protocols - CEBus, LON, X10, ZWave, to mention just a few.

I would like to see a remote IR emitter with an Ethernet port that could be controlled form HS with its Ethernet port. Yes, a serial protocol tunneled over Ethernet to a remote serial port IR device would work. Better yet, why not talk directly to an AV receiver with an Ethernet port? How about monitoring the clothes dryer for that cycle end packet? What needs to be defined is the management interface, something like SNMP extensions for the various home systems that should be controlled/monitored.

Content and control can coexist on Ethernet for almost all things HA, like it does today for networking hardware and PCs. That's where I'd like to see it go. Just another communications mechanism, but one that can connect just about everything.

So, let's get the SNMP extensons and MIBS defined and start putting cheap Ethernet modules in all the home appliances and electonics. Then let HS control and monitor them!

- Gordon

"God is gracious, God is fair. To some He gave brains, to others, hair." - anonymous

"Don't look under the hat."
- Gordon, 2004

[ka7gzr]

Mediastorm,
Some good points. This probably is getting off topic but..
I purchased the NX –590e a year ago and it brought me instant capabilities that HS might have someday if a developer deems it worthwhile (like Nitrox). Remote programming via the web (it’s encrypted) with the DL900 software is very powerful and isn’t yet available via HS. It is infinitely easier than dial up. It is a self-contained system, which does not rely on a PC, and we all know how reliable a PC is. In fact, if it weren’t for my desire for voice announcements with zone faults, I wouldn’t need a PC constantly tied to my NX-8e at all. There is no doubt that HS has many possibilities and could exceed the 590 capabilities but that day hasn’t arrived yet.
Jim

[MediaStorm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ka7gzr:
Mediastorm,
Some good points. This probably is getting off topic but..
I purchased the NX –590e a year ago and it brought me instant capabilities that HS might have someday if a developer deems it worthwhile (like Nitrox). Remote programming via the web (it’s encrypted) with the DL900 software is very powerful and isn’t yet available via HS. It is infinitely easier than dial up. It is a self-contained system, which does not rely on a PC, and we all know how reliable a PC is. In fact, if it weren’t for my desire for voice announcements with zone faults, I wouldn’t need a PC constantly tied to my NX-8e at all. There is no doubt that HS has many possibilities and could exceed the 590 capabilities but that day hasn’t arrived yet.
Jim<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With a Lantronix UDS-10 (~$40) you can also use DL900 to program the NX via TCP/IP. A PC constantly tied to the panel isn't such a bad thing really but I agree that the functionality isn't quite all there yet but I have full confidence that Dave can make it happen.

If you want to see an excellent integration of automation and security you should take a look at how smoothly it is integrated in Lantronix SYS. I'm not suggesting you switch automation platforms but merely pointing to it as a very good example of what is possible at some point.

I actually still use the older scripts instead of the plugin as it does a few things the plugin doesn't.

Dave does excellent work and I very much look forward to seeing his new releases in the future.

[huggy591]

OK! I've got my NX-590 board back and it has the latest rev and look at the graphic below from the DL900 software... it shows the Automation IP Address and Port config section for connecting to an automation controller such as Homeseer via IP.

So Nitrox, I'm ready to try your IP-based plugin if you have something ready to beta test. Note the port is configurable, but defaults at 9991. I blanked the IP address in the pic.