@htdvisser, @johan
It will be nice to have available a brief, easy readable introduction to V3, with a comparison between V2 and V3, so users can get an idea of what V3 will mean for them in practice and what they would need to do to prepare for it. Without having to do a deep dive and read all V3 tech specs first.
The SSL cert on the checking link has probably expired. I deleted the http(s) and have information from a Gateway that has status not connected. http://noc.thethingsnetwork.org:8085/api/v2/gateways/eui-58a0cbfffe8027c4 provides information
{“timestamp”:“2020-11-12T06:20:44.929881175Z”,“location”:{},“frequency_plan”:“EU_863_870”,“platform”:“minihub - Firmware 2.0.0 - Protocol 2”,“gps”:{},“time”:“1605162044929881175”}
The failure of gateways correctly register is frustrating as am making R&D with a view to large roll-out of LoRaWAN devices and replacing traditional modem comms in both water data loggers and electric meters.
If the gateways are forwarding packets you might have encountered the issue that the console does not always correctly reflect the gateway connection state. Another option is a typo in the EUI when registering it. Unregistered gateways will forward data.
For instance your Washington2 gateway id doesn’t look right.
Have noticed its dashboard status turns to “not connected” after 1 hour of hearing no node uplinks/received messages
If I power cycle, it shows connected for 1hr but then reverts to “not connected”
Other brand gateways I operate, uplink a periodic ‘stats’ message which keeps the connection alive regardless of whether nodes are uplinking. Is this a solution for TTIG?
TTIG already uplinks periodic messages, however these go to an intermediate process that handles connections for TTIG to the V2 stack as V2 does not support the protocol used by TTIG.
As I mentioned before on another topic, upon uplink the connection is re established automatically so there is nothing you need to do. Granted it would be nicer to have the connection status reported correctly.
You can of course install a node that uplinks a few times each hour to make sure the status stays green…
I found that it takes a significant time to establish the connection. As i approach the gateway I get within 2km before it starts relaying, but when driving away heard upto 14km away.
The annoying thing is when the gateway is “not connected” it gets removed from TTNmapper
Surely this is an easy fix for TTIG… every other gateway I use reflects correct status.
Can you expand on this - it sounds like a more complicated setup than just a TTIG going quiet on the dashboard - what’s up with the driving?
No one product, particularly at this price point, can satisfy all needs. There may well be a very good reason TTI chose to let this happen. The lowest cost solution is to get a small device a few meters away to uplink every 15 minutes.
Can you also expand on your test method - are you testing at a distance from fixed locations or moving (Driving?). If a long way from GW and Node cant get through it will try gradually higher SF’s, esp if previously connected when close to the GW, depending on device and code/library.
If running at SF11 or SF12 it likely wont connect straight away as IIRC there is a rule to stop nodes joining straight off at high SF’s. Also at higher SF’s the on air time is significant. E.g. a basic GPS tracker may be on air for 1.2-1.8sec at SF12 and during that time if moving there is a good chance you may find signal is lost behind terrain masking issues, buiding clutter etc. esecially if moving laterally (normal to LOS) wrt GW position) Also if moving at any speed you should also be aware of the concept of Signal Coherency (also called out in other forum threads) whereby the ability to hold lock on a signal deteriorates with increasing speed and increasing SF. Again IIRC SF7 is good for connections to >160-180kmph, whilst SF12 may struggle at <45kmph poss as low as 25kmph. (Especially if moving normal to the GW - i.e along direct line of sight). That is not to say signal wont get through just there there is increased chance of symbol/packet loss leading to failed MIC/CRC checks and hence rejected packets leading to loss of connection, depending on specific node & GW build standards and tolerances, use of TCxO’s etc. As you get closer the prospect for connection improves and that is what you may be seeing
If doing wide area coverage checks whilst moving (war driving) I slow down and stop occasionally to check SC isnt causing a problem, especially at sites of specific coverage interest, and reducing coverage results just in case
Your device does not connect to a gateway but to the LoRaWAN network. If you are using OTAA you might run into issues where the device needs to be close to the gateway to have it receive the join request and for the device to receive the join accept packet transmitted by the gateway. In this handshake packet loss in any direction will make it fail while for war driving some packet loss is expected and acceptable.
Have you tried starting close to the gateway where it works, increasing the distance to 12km and driving back (possible other route back) to see if that makes a difference?
The TTIG is installed at a commsite I manage, on a hill in a small regional town, 70km from my home. I have 10x OTAA GPS nodes of various manufacturers installed in my vehicle.
(All nodes previously OTAA’d and TXing to other gateways in my home town as I drive away, destined for TTIG town)
When driving into TTIG town, I get within 2km of the gateway before its portal status changes to “connected” and it starts relaying nodes packets
When driving around town, nodes packets are relayed as expected. Gateway-Node distance 0-7km
When driving away from town (via same route as step1) gateway continues to relay traffic out to around 14km (the point when mountains obstruct the RF path)
Not for TTI, as we don’t have hordes of people on here asking for this feature to be fixed - so the lowest cost solution is for you to put a node 20m away from it as the time taken to try to get TTI to change the firmware is likely to far exceed the cost of a small device.
Or get a gateway that doesn’t have this feature.
As frustrating as it is, the TTIG works when devices are present around it. Given its price point and the extra server load that it comes with, it’s not unsurprising that it takes the load off the central infrastructure if it’s not being used. But I totally concede it should wake up a bit quicker.