ImperiHome Standard System API
-
A cool feature would be if a gateway (typically Ethernet) could implement the ISS API so that ImperiHome could tap directly into the sensor network.
Reference: ImperiHome Standard System API definition
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to look further into it as I am no high level programmer so the time required for me to figure it out does not match the time I can afford to spend. But it would be nice to have :)
Alternatively, perhaps Evertygo could implement support for the MySensors GW/protocol. -
It would be nice if more than one "controller" (Vera, OpenHAB, ImperiHome, whatever) could connect to the same Ethernet GW. Maybe limited to 3-4 controllers max.
-
Hello,
I have made the imperihome interface for domoticz, so I know how to do it.
So far I've had no time to finish my domoticz to mysensor interface, all the more that domoticz now is making its native mysensors interface. I just had to plus both together, making the missing bits specific, it would have been a standalone Imperihome to mysensor controller ;-)
You can use imperihome with the vera which is natively fine and faster than the ISS.
If the gateway should have the ISS interface that would mean:
- an ethernet gateway only
- a controller capacity (not juste a gateway) for it assigns ne node id, it handles state and values (not just keep it for the controller), and it sends out orders on its own. This means something to store it in memory or on a file, something far more advanced that an arduino alone could make. Also, imperihome expectd quite a complex hardware listing if you have many nodes, this would use a lot of CPU... a raspi would be fit, but not an arduino.
z-wave - Vera -> Domoticz
rfx - Domoticz <- MyDomoAtHome <- Imperihome
mysensors -> mysensors-gw -> Domoticz -
Hello,
I have made the imperihome interface for domoticz, so I know how to do it.
So far I've had no time to finish my domoticz to mysensor interface, all the more that domoticz now is making its native mysensors interface. I just had to plus both together, making the missing bits specific, it would have been a standalone Imperihome to mysensor controller ;-)
You can use imperihome with the vera which is natively fine and faster than the ISS.
If the gateway should have the ISS interface that would mean:
- an ethernet gateway only
- a controller capacity (not juste a gateway) for it assigns ne node id, it handles state and values (not just keep it for the controller), and it sends out orders on its own. This means something to store it in memory or on a file, something far more advanced that an arduino alone could make. Also, imperihome expectd quite a complex hardware listing if you have many nodes, this would use a lot of CPU... a raspi would be fit, but not an arduino.
@epierre
I see. I already have ImperiHome interfacing with my Vera. However, in the long run, I am not going to allow Vera in my home. It sets up a local server with an outbound connection directly to Mios which therefore bypass my firewall. I am not going to allow that company to monitor my home. Currently I only use Vera since it is a known good reference for the MySensor framework.
I also have Domoticz running but have not yet tried to hook it up to the MySensors GW. Also, I have the desire to use some good Android frontend to the whole setup, and so far ImeriHome seem the best. But there are others and the Domoticz web UI might also be good enough. -
I too hope to find a path away from Vera LTD., but as of now that seems to be a long way off..
-
Why don't you put the vera in a firewalled DMZ? Then it can do less harm to the network.
@tbowmo
The issue is not it doing harm on my network. The issue is that I do not have control over the access management to it. I do not trust MiIOS to handle my account securely enough for me to entrust them with access to monitor and control my stuff.
I will eventually hack into it and disable the outbound connectivity I think (if it does not end up in the trash before that). I think there are some guides available for this on the web and forums. -
@epierre
Yep. And for good measure it is advisable to clean out a few backdoors as well. They always leave a root password that they "know", which it also is a good idea to change. After all, that is how you login yourself in the shell :) -
Ok, got it. Thought that you where concerned that they would log in to snoop around in the traffic on your local network.
But yes, I can see that it's a problem when they can take control over it, which means that they are able to change the programming you have done yourself.
-
Ok, got it. Thought that you where concerned that they would log in to snoop around in the traffic on your local network.
But yes, I can see that it's a problem when they can take control over it, which means that they are able to change the programming you have done yourself.
@tbowmo
Thats right.
But more imprtantly, the whole purpose of my signing development is to allow sensor nodes to trust the "sender". But this of course chains all the way to the controller, and with the MiOS tunnel, that chains outside the walls and then signing does not matter at all. Anybode with access to my MiOS account (which is hackable) can then access potentially my doorlock. And that would be...bad...
I know that MiOS intention is sort of honorable; easily provide remote access to your HA system. However, they should provide better support to opt-out of that option. If I wanted to access stuff remotely, I open a SSH tunnel with my two-factor authentication and then I have total access to my LAN.
But we are gliding off topic here :) @epierre basically answered my question and killed the overall topic since my query was if the current HW design could support this. If a much more gateway HW is required, then there are better alternatives to pursue.
