Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

161Re: CLB-013 - Network Port Object

Expand Messages
  • deanmatsen
    May 26, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Regarding single-homed devices, I always thought it was optional to be a single-homed device, but this just gives us a way to describe the NetworkPort object for such devices.

      Last time I looked at the NetworkPort object, it seemed like the idea was that single-homed implementations would have the property, and other devices wouldn't.

      My conclusion is that secure devices pretty much do need to be single-homed, because of the relationship between the device base security and the individual network policies. I also think single-homing solves some problems with NAT.

      If nothing else, we need to keep the idea of single-homed implementations available as an option.

      --- In bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Neilson" <cneilson@...> wrote:
      >
      > BACneteers,
      >
      >
      >
      > I have received a few comments on the Network Port object from a
      > developer at Delta Controls and would like to share those comments
      > before Montreal:
      >
      >
      >
      > - NetworkPort.MAC_Address is defined as type BACnetMACAddress. The
      > BACnetMACAddress is defined as a Sequence with only one field, a
      > mac-address octet string. It would be cleaner if
      > NetworkPort.MAC_Address were defined as an octet string type directly,
      > skipping the extra sequence tagging.
      >
      >
      >
      > - NetworkPort.BACnet_IP_Subnet_Mask is defined as type
      > BACnetHostAddress. An IPv4 subnet mask can never be specified by DNS
      > hostname so a base octet string would be a more appropriate type than
      > BACnetHostAddress.
      >
      >
      >
      > - NetworkPort.BACnet_IP_Default_Gateway is defined as type
      > BACnetHostAddress. A default gateway isn't defined by DNS hostname so a
      > base octet string would probably be more appropriate.
      >
      >
      >
      > - Dev.Home-Port - It is not clear why devices have to be single homed.
      >
      >
      >
      > There has been a comment in CLB-013 since revision 11 indicating that
      > the need for a Home network be reviewed with respect to the requirements
      > for Network Security and that if it is to remain in the document that a
      > definition of a home port be added. At this point I am not convinced
      > that the standard, including network security, requires single homed
      > devices. This should be evaluated before Montreal and removed if we
      > cannot find the requirement in the existing standard.
      >
      >
      >
      > Carl
      >
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic