Welcome to the Pycom forum Forum
    • \[\[global:header.categories\]\]
    • \[\[global:header.recent\]\]
    • \[\[global:header.tags\]\]
    • \[\[global:header.popular\]\]
    • Login

    Explore Pybytes | Official Documentation | Report a Firmware Bug/Issue | GitHub

    LoRaWAN 1.1 compatibility

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Comments & Feedback
    lorawan lopy
    14 Posts 6 Posters 3.6k Views 8 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • bmarkusB Offline
      bmarkus
      last edited by

      What is the plan to support LoRaWAN Specification 1.1? PyCom devices support 'Class A' and 'Class C'. Is it planned to add some of the 'Class B' featuers?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
      • sebS Offline
        seb
        last edited by

        At the moment this isn't a priority for us since no networks support it yet (TTN is planning support in Apr - May 2018). We will implement support for it eventually but I am afraid I cannot provide any more details at this time.

        bmarkusB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • bmarkusB Offline
          bmarkus @seb
          last edited by

          @seb Thanks!

          Regards... Béla

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • J Offline
            jclo13
            last edited by

            hi Seb,

            I wanted to consult you, does Lopy have the capacity as hardware to update to lorawan 1.1?

            thank you

            J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • J Offline
              jmarcelino @jclo13
              last edited by

              @jclo13
              Yes, LoRaWAN 1.1 doesn't need special hardware it's a software change.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
              • S Offline
                sidpat
                last edited by

                @seb TTN has started supporting lorawan v1.1 in their enterprise lorawan server. Any update on LoPy compatibility with the same version?

                bmarkusB J 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • bmarkusB Offline
                  bmarkus @sidpat
                  last edited by

                  @sidpat said in LoRaWAN 1.1 compatibility:

                  @seb TTN has started supporting lorawan v1.1 in their enterprise lorawan server. Any update on LoPy compatibility with the same version?

                  Which 1.1 features you want to use?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • J Offline
                    jmarcelino @sidpat
                    last edited by

                    @sidpat
                    Your post got me curious so I checked with Johan Stokking (TTN CTO) and he said LoRaWAN 1.1 was not actually available yet. It will come later (maybe May) for testing ahead of the public release.

                    We're following the ecosystem development progress. As @bmarkus asked I'd be interested to know what features you're looking for.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • S Offline
                      sidpat
                      last edited by sidpat

                      @jmarcelino, ah I got excited seeing this at https://www.thethingsindustries.com/technology/pricing 0_1520397365262_Screenshot 2018-03-07 10.04.15.jpg
                      Thought they had implemented it on the server side.

                      @bmarkus, I want to upgrade to v1.1 mostly because of the unique uplink confirmation message (using FCntUp in the MIC calculation) and new mac command to time sync node with the server.

                      bmarkusB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • bmarkusB Offline
                        bmarkus @sidpat
                        last edited by

                        @sidpat said in LoRaWAN 1.1 compatibility:

                        @jmarcelino, ah I got excited seeing this at https://www.thethingsindustries.com/technology/pricing 0_1520397365262_Screenshot 2018-03-07 10.04.15.jpg
                        Thought they had implemented it on the server side.

                        @bmarkus, I want to upgrade to v1.1 mostly because of the unique uplink confirmation message (using FCntUp in the MIC calculation) and new mac command to time sync node with the server.

                        @sidpat Do you have a LoRaWAN 1.1 device already?

                        S C 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • S Offline
                          sidpat @bmarkus
                          last edited by

                          @bmarkus Not yet. It is why I asked about any update on PyCom's implementation on v1.1 for LoPy and FiPy.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • C Offline
                            chumelnicu @bmarkus
                            last edited by

                            @bmarkus , @jmarcelino Is seems Orne Brocaar already did integrate Lorawan Class B in his open source private server.

                            I waiting too for B - Node Class implementation for pycom hardware

                            Thank you

                            www.loraserver.io

                            bmarkusB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • bmarkusB Offline
                              bmarkus @chumelnicu
                              last edited by bmarkus

                              @chumelnicu said in LoRaWAN 1.1 compatibility:

                              @bmarkus , @jmarcelino Is seems Orne Brocaar already did integrate Lorawan Class B in his open source private server.

                              I waiting too for B - Node Class implementation for pycom hardware

                              Thank you

                              www.loraserver.io

                              Please keep in mind that 'Class B' need not only compatible devices and network servers, but it must be supported by the gateways.

                              Most of the gateways running today are not 'Class B' compliant.

                              C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • C Offline
                                chumelnicu @bmarkus
                                last edited by

                                @bmarkus Good too know .. I will keep that in my mind

                                Thank you!

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0

                                Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                                Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                                With your input, this post could be even better 💗

                                Register Login
                                • 1 / 1
                                • First post
                                  Last post

                                Pycom on Twitter

                                Pycom