I’m trying to set up a network across two separate rooms, but the issue I’m having is that the network can’t extend from one room to the next because of the wall in-between or something is stopping an anchor in one room from ‘seeing’ an anchor in the other room. I’ve tried various positions.
Please can someone tell me what the solution to this would be as I think this may be a common problem?
The PanID is the same for all the anchors because I understand they all need to be on the same network. But the problem is an anchor in one room can’t see an anchor in the other room.
Is it possible to set up two networks in the two different rooms with the same pan id and then have them connect somehow? I am going to have a gateway in each room?
I think I’ve found the solution, but please would someone confirm?
Can I get round this by creating 2 different networks (for the two separate rooms) but have the same Pan ID (so they can service the same tags) with the added proviso that each room has its own initiator? And also each room will have its own gateway and this will allow me to know the position of a tag whether it’s in the first room or the second room?
Please would someone confirm this before I try it out?
Hi @Sunny
yes you can have a two networks with the same PANID.
If there will be some occasional RF link between then you might experience some network desynchronization as those two independent networks will try to synchronize ( independently on PANID).
All I needed was to set up another gateway in the 2nd room for the anchors to be online. The problem was that I thought all that was needed was for the anchor to be within range with another anchor for it to be online, but I realise that all the anchors also need to be within range with a gateway to complete the network.
Yes ramg, it does work, but I didn’t need to have another initiator. In my case I just wanted to extend the network, and it worked when I put a 2nd gateway in the second room – all the anchors came to life all of a sudden.
Hi @Sunny
I think that you are combining two things together.
You can extend the network by adding another anchors. If you have two nearby rooms they you need to have at least one UWB link between them. The UWB network will be up and running.
Monitoring / controlling the UWB network via gateways. For this you need to add a couple gateways to be able to see all the network. But this completely independent on UWB network.
Thanks for the clarification. I understand. This means the anchors are up and running regardless – only I’m not able to see them until I set up a gateway at whichever location I choose to monitor them.
If 1) is yes. The location of a tag in Network 1 will be available through Gateway 1 (when visible to Gateway 1) , and the location of the same tag will be available throuh Gateway 2 (when visible to Gateway 2) ?
If a tag is visible to both Gateways, the location data will be available though both Gateways?
Yes, I believe this to be the case. You can have separate networks with the same pan id, and if you have gateways set up in those networks then they will be able to report on the tag position, whether in network 1 or in network 2. In your case, if there is no signal overlap (not sure of the correct terminology here) between the networks, then you will need to have an initiator in each network. In my case there was signal overlap (between the two rooms) so I only needed a single initiator.
I’m not sure what the answer to (3) would be. I think it would depend on how you’ve set up your anchors and gateway and if there is any overlap and also which anchors the tag would choose to range with, so a number of factors. I think in theory yes, but I’m guessing here.
Hope I’ve explained it and understood it correctly otherwise someone may wish to correct me.
Hi @ramg@Sunny
regarding your questions 1 + 2 will work.
re 3.)
The system (daemon + linux app + web app) is not designed to support multiple isolated networks with the same PANID. After a local discussion you might be able to observe the network (receive locations) but you might not be able to send IoT messages from server to the nodes. There is a complex clockwork to handle IoT messages (from server to the node) and this might not work as those networks are not synchronized but the synchronization is the key function for message sending. As a conclusion you should be able to observe the network, you might not be able to send IoT messages to the node and you might face some unknown issues.
If there is any chance for UWB overlapping I recommend you to ad there a few Anchors to have it as one big UWB network.
