<![CDATA[2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol]]>To simplify sketches even further we've discussed and decided to let sensors send in standard SI units and let controller convert them to the appropriate format.

This will also remove the need for a unit-config exchange with controller at sensor startup.

The new over-the-air messages has changed quite much with a more logical structure that can handle extension and even a completely different network layer if needed.

The ongoing work can be found here:
https://github.com/henrikekblad/Arduino/blob/development/libraries/MySensors/MyMessage.h

Will not bring this into development until it actually compiles.

Feel free to give feedback and report any missed sensor-types.

In parallell we should probably discuss the serial-protocol for 2.0. Is it time for json perhaps?

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/topic/304/2-0-discussion-units-sensor-types-and-protocolRSS for NodeFri, 10 Apr 2026 17:08:52 GMTFri, 22 Aug 2014 21:08:25 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:55:01 GMT]]>@axillent said:

@celonunes it is not my solution) it is a way of using 1.4.1 with multiple gateways

I'm aware of this.

@lunarok your wish may become possible in future developments using MQTT

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10332https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10332Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:55:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:03:08 GMT]]>@celonunes it is not my solution) it is a way of using 1.4.1 with multiple gateways

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10200https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10200Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:03:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:40:18 GMT]]>@axillent said:

@celonunes will you keep a limit 8 bit for ID?

currently with multi-gateway setup I have N * 255 address space, where N is a number of gateways

Yes.
Your solution seems interesting, do you have some published code of it?

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10194https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10194Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:40:18 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 05:57:29 GMT]]>@celonunes will you keep a limit 8 bit for ID?

currently with multi-gateway setup I have N * 255 address space, where N is a number of gateways

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10181https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10181Sat, 14 Feb 2015 05:57:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 22:33:46 GMT]]>Each node will continue to have a unique id in the network.
The controller would have additional work to map nodes to their proper gateway, and this could make the whole idea into something impracticable depending on the controller software.

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10177https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10177Fri, 13 Feb 2015 22:33:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:31:24 GMT]]>@celonunes said:

Gateway become normal node, with an id(1-254), like a repeater. Address 0 become like a virtual address which is used when a node wants to send a message to the controller.
This solution will give more redundancy to the network but the same limitations apply, like the max of 254 per network.

OK. But how this will prevent conflicts on the air between nodes connected to different gateways and having same radio channel and BASE_ADDRESS?

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10175https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10175Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:31:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:58:04 GMT]]>In the case raised by @lunarok, I'm not sure it will fit.

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10173https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10173Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:58:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:30:13 GMT]]>Gateway become normal node, with an id(1-254), like a repeater. Address 0 become like a virtual address which is used when a node wants to send a message to the controller.
This solution will give more redundancy to the network but the same limitations apply, like the max of 254 per network.

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10172https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10172Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:30:13 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:55:47 GMT]]>@celonunes what kind of a solution it will be?
will it be possible to route messages between nodes managed by different gateways?

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10171https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10171Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:55:47 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:47:27 GMT]]>There is a solution for multi-gateway that I'm working to port it to the development branch which could use the same radio channel and also to have sensors at gateway node.

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10170https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10170Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:47:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:16:35 GMT]]>A support for multi-gateway setup is needed. Currently it is required to hardcode radio-channel or base-address for different segments-different gateways

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10166https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10166Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:16:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:00:07 GMT]]>Hi,

A new wish. Possible to have the network gateway listening for nodes also on the ethernet network. Looking for ethernet nodes inside the electric panel. No RF, no security break :)

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10164https://forum.mysensors.org/post/10164Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:00:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:01:51 GMT]]>@tekka Please see the discussion on security.

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9231https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9231Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:01:51 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:59:24 GMT]]>I'm afraid I can only fork a topic int two threads. Haven't found a way to move posts to another thread/topic.

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9229https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9229Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:59:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:35:56 GMT]]>Would be good to move the last five message into a separate thread...

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9226https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9226Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:35:56 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:34:39 GMT]]>Yes, signing, when properly done, is for sure a good begin.

How many bytes are you using for the truncated MAC and nonce?

The AES block size is 128 bytes, so 16 bytes so I do not see why that would not fit.

Encryption is already some kind of authentication is a sense that if you can successfully decode the message you can be sure that the other side knows the shared secret, just like in the cause of your SHA25-HMAC.

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9225https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9225Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:34:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:16:59 GMT]]>

what benefit is there from encryption vs signing in the MySensors case?

If you have a lock or door sensor do you want others to know when it is opened or closed?

Signing is quite expensive if you look at additional payload size, you need a big counter to prevent replay and a big MAC to prevent attacks. I think that when encrypting things you can do it with the same additional payload and maybe even a less.

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9223https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9223Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:16:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:34:48 GMT]]>Any plans for encryption?

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9217https://forum.mysensors.org/post/9217Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:34:48 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 2.0 Discussion: Units, sensor types and protocol on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:18:04 GMT]]>@axillent

Yes, configurable base address would be handy if we choose to create an ESP-gateway. It is already supported today but you have to hard code it into MyConfig.h. Would be neat to have this configurable over WiFi.

Using OTA transmitted floats is optional. I haven't looked so deeply on how/if this will be supported yet in the upcoming version.

]]>https://forum.mysensors.org/post/8931https://forum.mysensors.org/post/8931Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:18:04 GMT