I am a beginner in Zigbee. I wanna create a mesh network of Zigbee modules in which all nodes can communicate with each other.
I found that Zigbee can be operated in different modes and each modes have its own features. I want to know that which mode will provide an effortless communication in real time applications. We want to build a system that automatically connects to the neighboring Zigbee modules and establishing a communication path to each other.
Is anyone knows about it,please give me the answer to clarify my doubts.
You can use both
Transparent mode has limited functionality and not suitable for larger networks but
API mode allows you to form larger networks and is more appropriate for creating sensor networks to perform tasks such as collecting data from multiple locations, controlling devices remotely, automating your home or for real time systems.
Related
Can I simulate susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS) model using NS-3?
I'm aiming to model malware flow using SIS and trying to simulate using NS-3.
I'm a newbie to networks, and have been searching for this since hours, going through tens of research papers but can't find anything similar.
SIS implies some sort of discovery mechanism to spread the infection of a network. These discovery mechanisms typically use exploits in network capable daemons. So, to simulate SIS, you want a simulator that works at the application level of the network stack.
ns-3 has some application-level capabilities, but it's mostly intended to be used to simulate the network stack below the application level. The application-level capabilities that ns-3 does have are limited to traffic generation. Discovering the presence of a service on a Node, let alone a compromised version of a daemon, is not supported.
So, it seems like you'll need to find another simulator. I'm not sure what your options are, but depending on how complex of a simulation you want, you could just roll your own by representing the network as a graph, and infecting a susceptible node with probability p.
Has anyone worked with BLE applications where there is no smartphone (or app) involved with very little ability for computing power? I am formulating something around asset tracking where the use of a smartphone would not be possible and minimal computing power would exist. Is it possible?
Interesting concept. But could you be more descriptive on what exactly are you trying to implement in terms of computing power?
I suppose you could try my opinions below, (Apologies for anyone who disagrees, feel free to add things here)
--> Without a smart phone can be done, if the BLE module can write some serial data to a wifi module on the same board. So you will simply program the wifi module with your wifi name and password so it can transmit logs from ble to the web and with that you could use https://thingspeak.com/ or similar IoT cloud based services to analyze your raw data to a meaningful graphical version.
--> Little ability for computing power?, Well if you want to bypass all the UI that does the processing for your raw data, the programming part will be quite complex. There are several ways to handle data BLE data, if the BLE is capable of acting as a Central and Peripheral role at the same time, you could possibly create a network of BLE modules talking to each other and use the raw data to suit your application needs.
Hope this helps.
P.s I have tried both the above methods as part of testing and they both work.
I'm looking into how one would create a network of embedded systems. What I'd like to achieve is for a device (basically a chip with network capabilities) to directly send data to a server but not use the internet(tcp/ip) or cellular data(like GSM etc).
I don't have much expertise in this field. Most of the networking protocols I've seen like ZigBee are designed for a Local Area Networks. Wide Area Network can be achieved perhaps over mesh or hoping etc. But is there a known protocol for long range networking, say for sensors, assuming there aren't low power constraints?
I am guessing you want to avoid the internet and GSM, not because you have anything against the protocols but because you want your solution to work without having to rely these networks.
If so then you don't have to rule out TCP/IP as this can be used in private networks also.
From your description it sounds like the closest thing that would meet your needs would be a satellite based communications system. So long as you are not worried about price, power and to a certain extend size, then your sensors can communicate from anywhere using satellite links.
There are also HAP - High Altitude Platforms. These are essentially like low flying Satellites, or high flying planes/blimps, so don't have the same coverage but need less power for a given communication bandwidth. If you search for 'High Altitude Platform Networking' you should find plenty of examples such as the following which is an up to date summary of the technology at the time of writing:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2175-91462016000300249
As mentioned above, many if not all of these systems will support IP based communication protocols on top of their lower layers. Unless you really have some issue with the protocols themselves, it seems sensible to use them as there is such a wealth of experience, tools etc associated with IP communications, and using them does not make you dependent on the wider 'Internet'.
Its also worth mentioning that a common pattern is to have local groups of sensors communicate with each other and or with a gateway and the gateway then communicate over the long link back to your server. This allows the individual device be smaller, cheaper, lower power etc. This may not match your requirements if you are not likey to have clusters of sensors, however.
If you search for satellite sensor networks you may find you get a lot of hits for the gateway case mentioned above. This article 'A Survey of Architectures and Scenarios in Satellite-Based Wireless Sensor Networks: System Design Aspects' looks to be a good overview which includes HAPs also and it is available to download form this site at the time of writing:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250003254_A_Survey_of_Architectures_and_Scenarios_in_Satellite-Based_Wireless_Sensor_Networks_System_Design_Aspects
I would look into LoRa which is designed with these requirements in mind.
You still need infrastructure for that (gateways, network servers), you could roll out your own or (in urbanized areas) use pre-existing one like TTN.
The choice of networking technologies depends on many factors, such as range, power constraints, bandwidth requirements and so on.
User Raber already pointed out that you could look into LoRa / LoRaWAN. Since nobody else mentioned it yet, my suggestion is to also have a look at SigFox technology, which is slightly different from LoRa in what it offers and their business model.
I started exploring openHAB for my home automation. Looks to be a great application for the home automation. I want to automate two homes and want to run openHAB on one centrally placed server. Is it possible to segregate the data for my two homes and provide use based access for two homes.
Or I will have to have to instances running on my server.
Please suggest if anyone has done this earlier.
you can (I believe) provide different sitemaps, but the most importing question is how will a central openhab instance communicate with the "other" home?
Especially If you're going to use bindungs which require a piece of hardware like z-wave etc.
You can potentially play with MQTT and have a small Raspberry Pi running in the "other" home feeding the MQTT.
Assuming that there is not a hardware or range based issue with using OpenHab for two homes (e.g. z-wave USB dongle but second home is out of range) and there is network connectivity between the two houses, there are a number of ways you can accomplish this. Here is one.
The easiest would probably be to just use a naming convention for your items and groups to easily tell which house the item comes from. You would probably want to set up a separate sitemap for each house as well. If I understand your question this should segregate the data for you based on name and provide use based access for each home.
If you want to segregate the data even more thoroughly you can configure your persistence to save all the items from one house to one DB and all the others to a different one, though you will need two different persistence bindings set up (i.e. one uses rrd4j and another uses db4o). I'm not sure this provides any advantage.
The final step is getting the data from the remote house into openHab. How this is accomplished will depend on the nature of the sensors and triggers in the other house. You can use the HTTP binding, TCP/IP binding, or an MQTT broker. I've personally exposed a couple of my Raspberry Pi based sensors to openHAB using a python script and the paho library that publishes the sensor data read from the GPIO pins to an MQTT broker and it works great.
Centralization vs segregation - you have to decide, which one has more advantages and less risk.
The two houses will store data on the server (openhab2, mqtt, DB/rr4d) and each one have access to it - that must be clarified.
The network connectivity is obvious, it should be stable between the two sites. Security is another issue - not only digital, but safety of life (hvac controlling or safety appliances with network outage?).
Configuration is pretty supported in both ways, separate config files (items, rules, persistence, etc) and connectivity in a hierarchy has endless approaches and capabilities.
In the newest version of the android app you can add multiple openhab servers. Why don't just use two instances of openHAB?
We are working on a project to create a V2V ad-hoc network between vehicles. Basically we are deploying Raspberry Pis in vehicles and we are using Xbee modules and Zigbee protocol in order to exchange data between vehicles if they are near from each other.
Our ad-hoc network is completely dynamic and decentralized (We cannot have any static nodes in the network). Our problem is that the topology of the mesh network created by the Zigbee protocol requires a coordinator to be always in the network and the network will fail in case this coordinator failed down.
It seems that using Zigbee protocol requires knowing the topology of the network beforehand.
We do not know whether it is feasible to create our dynamic network using the Zigbee protocol without knowing the topology of the network beforehand and without the requirement of the coordinator. Can we have more than 1 coordinator in the network to overcome this problem? Thanks in advance.
Is there a particular reason you are looking to use Zigbee? if you are after a truely decentralised network you would be better off using either a different protocol (one that has no need for a coordinator) or by defining your own using basic RF modems (which is a lot more complicated)
however XBee modules are configurable by AT commands, with a bit of work you could probably set them up to periodically change mode (when it is running as coordinator) to check for other coordinators and if it finds one then stay as a standard node, and if the coordinator drops out (stops replying) then steps up to be coordinator.
this approach would require you to solve a few issues though:
how do the remaining modules in the network decide which becomes coordinator
how often would the coordinator scan for other coordinators in order to effect a reasonable response time, yet not disrupt data flow
i would suggest that you provide a bit more information relevant to the question such as:
how much data is being transferred?
how often is this data being transferred?
how are you planning to define where the data gets sent (addresses? or multicast to everywhere?)
hopefully this helps you in the right direction, but in the mean time i'd suggest you look at the XBee datasheets for the AT commands and what is possible (has been a while since i used them)
James
Digi sells XBee modules that implement protocols other than ZigBee. Both the plain 802.15.4 module and their proprietary DigiMesh module would be possible candidates for your project if you don't need to be ZigBee-compliant.
I think that you could send broadcast messages with 802.15.4.
With DigiMesh, all nodes are of the same node type. But I do not know how well it will handle having networks come together and fragment on a regular basis. You could contact Digi's technical support or sales support teams to see if they can provide any guidance.