-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 129
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
BACnet device is not discoverable in Yabe #510
Comments
It would be strange to have network restrictions that block the same kind of traffic to different IPv4 addresses, but it's possible. Run the "vanilla" module on HOST-Device-2 and turn on debugging like
If something is blocking the incoming Who-Is packets, it won't show up here. If this application responds (note that it uses device instance number 999 by default) then there's something else going on in your application. |
In the "legacy" BACpypes turn on debugging with |
Thanks for the response. I am attaching the logs of both working and non-working devices attached herewith. We cannot find such differences, the only delta observed was in i-am requests. The working gateway shows I-am requests with multiple indications of a few different instance addresses but the non-discoverable device shows the i-am request only once in the beginning (single instance address). |
Please help me with this. Thanks |
Hi Joel,
We have 2 HOST devices and all BACnet devices are added to these two host devices. Further, we use YABE to read/write operations on these BACnet devices.
Now, We are in a situation where, both the HOST devices have the same code and configurations set. but HOST-Device1 is discoverable on YABE and HOST-Device2 is not discoverable in the YABE.
We also looked at the Wireshark logs:
1018.342027777 192.168.9.197 192.168.9.255 BACnet-NPDU 60 I-Am-Router-To-Network
The undiscoverable devices enrolled with the HOST-Device2 are not sending the Unconfirmed-REQ i-Am device response.
(BACnet port = UDP 47808)
So what does this say?
What steps should we take to debug this further?
Is this type of behaviour possible due to some network restrictions?
Any help would be appreciated!! Thanks!!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: