Lynn's Industrial Protocols over IP

Creeping Firewalls and Change

2008-08-07T07:05:00.000-07:00

Summary: Network infrastructure changes can create unexpected havoc (surprised?)

We had a customer come in with a complaint recently about some old products - a 4-port terminal server (a TS4) running Modbus bridging firmware. Things had gone on smoothly for years, but suddenly they started having problems which power-cycling the units solved ... obviously it's a Digi problem, right?

Well, I'm not going to run through all of the issues, but I'll highlight one which will affect more and more people over time. Remember the old days - first you had dumb dialup modems, then you had to pay a lot for various error-detection standards, and now all analog modems have a big chip which does a hundred different standard things and you CANNOT buy any low-cost analog dial-up modem which is any dumber than state-of-the-art.

Such creep occurs in Ethernet switches also - once hubs were cheap and switches cost a king's ransom. Now even the "cheap" $19 home switches purchased in big-box stores are auto-sense, auto-cross, auto-everything. The same things happens - once the features are rolled into software or firmware, future revs of the product inherit such features for free ... said another way, it is often cheaper to sell lots of one powerful model than handle the marketing and support costs of a dozen models of various power and feature-set.

Well, this customer had been upgrading their wide-area-network infrastructure - a tangle of routed IP-based leased lines, old analog lines, radio/microwave links and so one, and as part of the improvement the various router/PPP end-points had added stateful awareness of packets ... part of an increase in US government security demands for utilities. After all, when you have hundreds of raw Ethernet ports scattered across rural American protected with little more than a padlock and chain-link fence, one has to consider the possibility of someone trying to 'jack' back into the 100% private network from a remote location.

The issue with such an addition is that routers with firewalls commonly default to a 5-minute TCP life rule. Every stateful firewall creates a table entry for every TCP or UDP activity going "out" from a safer network and into a wilder, less safe network - your home DSL/Cable router does the same thing. NAT (etc) is optional, but bottom line is the firewall needs to understand and agree to the context of every packet trying to pass through.

For a TCP socket this usually means at least 1 packet (data or ACK or Keepalive) must move every 5 minutes to refresh the context and inform the firewall that the TCP socket is still authorized. If no packets are seen, the fire wall discards the context and the socket is now ignored and 100% blocked without comment. Of course both TCP peers might think the socket is alive and well, but they will never be able to use it again.

So back to our TS4 off in some remote field - a host computer has 4 TCP sockets open to it through various routed subnets and for whatever reason the host doesn't send any new packets for 6 minutes. The TS4 has no reason to talk since it is connected to Modbus slaves. So 6 minutes later the host issues 4 Modbus requests on 4 sockets, which hit the stateful firewall. The firewall looks up the context (called forwarding or trigger rules in some systems) and discovers there is no existing context for these TCP packets. Well, once upon a time the firewall would just assume since these were safe since they came from the safe side, and thus auto-create a new context, yet modern stateful firewalls might NOT do this since it was a common hacker exploit to fool firmwalls to move malformed packets. Thus modern security demands that the first packet of any new TCP socket be a [SYN] packet. All four packets are silently discarded as unknown (note: this is a configurable behavior in most firewalls - to auto-recreate a context for an 'old' TCP socket continuing or to only allow this for new TCP sockets.)

The TS4 never sees the four new request; the host sees neither an [ACK] nor a [RST] of the TCP socket, so it retries after 3 seconds, then 6 and so on. Eventually it comprehends the TCP socket has died and opens four new TCP sockets. These are allowed through the firewall since they contain the correct TCP state as being new sockets. The TS4 sees the four new socket requests and now has eight (8) sockets connected.

Now you might say "What a minute - the four old sockets were closed!". Well, yes - the HOST knows they are dead and closed them, but the TS4 does not know this. Six minutes later, the same is repeated and the TS4 now has 12, then 16, then 20 sockets open. Eventually the TS4 runs out of resources, and the customer's open recovery option is a hard reboot of the TS4. This is of course worse if the host only occasionally takes longer than 5 minutes to poll, since the increase in TS4 sockets could take an unpredictable amount of time to build up.

How to solve this problem?

The first line of defense in the modern IP age is to always, ALWAYS enable TCP keepalives with an aggressive 4 minute 30 second idle time in any product you install. Even if you don't have stateful packet inspection within your IP network today, that doesn't mean the next time someone replaces a router or serial PPP end-point you won't gain one. Unfortunately the Digi products usually default to a 2 hour TCP Keepalive - which is also disabled (for historical reasons). Yet having a 4.5 minute keepalive would have saved the TS4 because the first time the host delayed longer than 4.5 minutes to poll, the TS4 would have sent a TCP keepalive packet back through the stateful firewall, which the host returns and the firewall's context for this socket is refreshed. Thus when the host does finally send the next Modbus poll after 6 minutes (1.5 minutes after the TCP keepalive exchange) the firewall is satisfied with the packets and forwards them out to the TS4. Everyone is happy. Plus even if the TCP socket has been aborted by the firewall, the TS4's TCP keepalive will be silently discarded and the TS4 will retry and eventually comprehend that the TCP socket is no longer valid. This is the purpose of TCP Keepalive - to allow a TCP peer with no data to move to test (and refresh) the health of an idle connection.
The second possibility is unique to the Digi IA/Modbus application. You can enable a setting referred to as "idletimeout" on incoming client or outgoing server connections. Unlike the TCP Keepalive which create traffic and keeps an idle socket open, the idletimeout literally just aborts an idle socket without giving it any chance to prove it is healthy. So setting a 5 minute idle timeout in the TS4 would cause it to just assume any incoming Modbus client (master) connection which has NOT sent a new request is bad. This setting would also have saved the TS4, forcing the four old sockets to be aborted before the TS4 had a chance to build up a herd of dead sockets.

So understanding TCP Keepalive is a critical skill for all modern industrial Ethernet users, after all more and more facilities are breaking their floors and functional area into distinct subnets with stateful firewall protection to keep the Accountants from changing the color of the widgets being produced - and to keep the production engineers from printing on the accounting departments laser printer which uses red ink :-).

More complete discussion of TCP Keepalive is here (one of dozens of web site you can find in a web search).

Tunneling Serial Data over Cellular

2008-08-01T09:51:00.000-07:00

Tunneling Serial Data over Cellular

Question: you have a Windows-based application which expects to talk over normal serial ports - how can you connect to a remote serial device over a cellular-IP link?

Products: works with Digi Connect WAN, WANIA or WANVPN, Digi ConnectPort VPN, X4 or X8

Answer: Our Digi RealPort driver for Windows 2000/XP/Vista dated Nov 2008 now supports a nice low-overhead "UDP: Serial Data Only" mode. This will cost a fraction of what normal TCP-mode Realport or competitors TCP redirectors will cost.

Here is a web page explaining how to install RealPort for UDP mode (DDNS names can be used!)
http://digitips.wikispaces.com/Digi+Realport+with+UDP

Here is a web page explaining how to set the WANIA to UDP Sockets.
http://digitips.wikispaces.com/Digi+UDP+Sockets+WAN

I set this up yesterday and have been polling a Modbus/ASCII serial slave on my CPX4 using RealPort and UDP mode. Responses take from 2 to 3 seconds to return … in part because I am polling so slowly that the modem PARKS in between every poll and I wait 30 seconds for a response timeout. I see perhaps 0.25% error / no response timeout but then my SIM doesn’t have the best signal where my product sits.

However, I still believe people need to be realistic – even in the situations where the slave response times out I’d suggest NOT retrying immediately since the retries have a higher than normal probability of failing as well. Missing a few polls a day is better than needlessly paying more for data plans.

Evolution of Data Plan Billing

2008-07-23T12:28:00.000-07:00

Summary: the big three have moved away from unlimited data, towards limited data.

It is interesting - I once (as in last year) had a talk with a potential partner who'd been at some European conference and was convinced the world was on the verge of low-cost (sub-$20/month) unlimited cellular data plans. We were discussing the creation of report-by-exception tools to reduce SCADA costs, and this partner's strong faith in this belief caused them to eventually bail out of the talks, saying "In a year or two, no SCADA company will care about how much cellular data they use."

Yet as of the summer of 2008 the world of cellular data is moving in the opposite direction. Last year the big three (AT&T/Sprint/Verizon) offered "Unlimited Data" for personal users with the Service Terms listing a VERY narrow list of permitted activities - mainly email and web browsing, with many common things like file download/upload, media-streaming prohibited. So when ever one of the big three would cut off a user for moving too much data on an "unlimited plan", the service provider would fall back on the "You are doing prohibitted things, thus impacting our network, thus take your business elsewhere". What a way to cause bad feelings, eh? Note that this change is CONSUMER plans - machine-to-machine have always been limited, priced by the MB/month without rollover, plus with charges for data overages.

Now all three have dropped the price from the $80/month range down to $60/month range ... but added a hard limit of 5GB per month. Isn't free & vigorous market competition wonderful?

Sounds reasonable - 5,000 megabytes of data is a lot, yet this doesn't mean 5GB of data transfer. It means 5GB of metered activity, with many activities I've studied including up to 95% overhead. Thus someone only moving 20-30MB of real data in small packets per month might hit pretty close to their 5GB limit! My experience with normal wide-area-network traffic hints that a real PC user doing simple email and web-browsing once a day would probably move 1-2GB of data before hitting the 5GB total activity limit.

To paraphrase the wireless data service terms for all three:

Data transport is always measured in full kilobytes
Actual transport is always rounded up to next full-kilobyte at "end of session"
Network overhead and resend requests caused by network errors can increase measured kilobytes.
2 of 3 mention always rounding up to nearest kilobyte every hour period.
All warn that you will NOT receive an itemized detail of how your charges are calculated; you will NOT see which services were used or during which time periods the charges were inccurred under.

So if I send a single 50 byte UDP/IP packet, is that a full session and billed as 1024 bytes? Could be under this language since UDP is 'sessionless'.

Hmm, the term session is pretty ambiguous. Perhaps it means per "time you enable your PC-based cellular data card." That seems likely - plus if you left your device on twenty-four hours a day then the once per hour round-up would catch you.

I'm afraid I haven't offered any new answer here, other than to suggest you understand that low-cost unlimited data plans ARE NOT just around the corner ... at best we left them behind last year and I don't foresee them ever returning. I suppose all three now understand that huge new profits are to be made with these 5GB limits, which will cause many "super-salesman" using their cellular data plan daily to spend an extra $50 to $500 in monthly overage charges.

Lower Cost Cellular to Rockwell AB PLC

2008-07-11T09:56:00.000-07:00

I have several customers now working through how to manage cost-effective cellular access to Rockwell PLC such as ControlLogix, CompactLogix, Micrologix 1100 and so on. Unfortunately the most straight forward way to link using Ethernet/IP is fairly costly.

First, a personal recommendation from me – a free tool which I find very useful and think you will too. Today, you can buy 2GB USB flash drives for $15 – if you're old like me, you remember when an entire Windows computer only had 0.020GB of hard drive space! Did you know you can literally install and run many Windows applications from these portable USB drives? This means any Windows computer you plug this USB drive into has your applications, your settings, and your data files. I've used one of these for over a year and it is invaluable - all free open source code too! You can run OpenOffice (which can read/write MSOffice 2003 files and is much faster than the MSOffice 2007 we use at Digi), Firefox web browser, plus a dozen other tools. Take a special look at KeePass, which I use daily from my USB drive to securely hold all of my hundred-plus account names and passwords.

Portableapps.com - What is a Portable App?

Okay, back to work.

Periodic PLC Access from RSLogix

Customers who want to peek into a single PLC at a remote site for an hour or two can use RSLinx to connect to either an IP or DNS name, then see the PLC via cellular. The catch is RSLinx will create from 12MB to 200MB of background traffic per month. So you need to create a new Ethernet Driver (not Ethernet/IP!) JUST for this one-time use, configure in your details, connect and do your work. When you are done you need to turn browsing off, then delete the comm driver. Why not just delete the IP or DNS name? Unfortunately once RSLinx has seen a device, it can be like a bad rash to get rid of it.

Data polling – at Central Office

Customers with an OPC server speaking DF1, CSPv4, or even Ethernet/IP can poll PCCC-type data through a Digi One IAP, which converts the polls into DF1 Radio Modem under UDP. Tests have show using DF1 Radio Modem every few minutes accomplishes the same data movement as Ethernet/IP with only 5% the data cost (or Ethernet/IP uses 2000% more data bytes). One unit of Digi One IAP can poll up to 60 remote IP or DNS names. If your OPC server can encapsulate DF1 Radio Modem directly into UDP/IP, then you won't need the Digi One IAP to act as your host.

Data Polling – at Remote Site

If you have an AB PLC which speaks DF1 Radio Modem directly, then any Digi cellular router can be configured for UDP Sockets, with shuttles UDP data received to the serial port. Make sure you use the latest Digi firmware so it can just return UDP responses to last sender without explicit address configuration.

If your AB PLC doesn't speak DF1 Radio Modem, or you want to use an Ethernet link, then using a Digi cellular router with Python support allows a simple script which accepts DF1 requests and uses a local Ethernet/IP session to query responses from the PLC's PCCC Object. This Python code even runs on a PC under Windows or Linux. As soon as I have a link or web page explaining how to get and use this code, I'll edit this post to add it here.

Quick Data Comms to AB PLC

2008-07-10T14:54:00.000-07:00

One of my readers was asking for a quick way to talk via Ethernet to a Rockwell AB PLC.

You can actually talk to a ControlLogix by only understanding TWO (2) different packets, each with a response, so four packets I guess. The problem is this uses "UCMM" style communications, which the PLC has very limited resources for. Said another way, the CIP Connected Messaging or I/O production both include an inherent allocation of resources, while the UCMM is designed to be used ONLY to setup such pre-allocated resources.

So yes, you can use the information below to create a literal quick-n-dirty solution, and if you talk more than a few times a second you might start to interfer with other communications to the PLC (which is not a good thing!) However you could treat this as a proof of concept, and then work to do the communications more fully per the ODVA specs.

Here is the PDF of how to read/write to the PCCC Object in a Logix Processor here.

Public Internet Risk in Common Tools

2008-05-30T07:06:00.001-07:00

Two months ago a SCADA customer asked me to enable FTP (File-Transfer-Protocol) on a test RTU they'd sent me to put online for them. It was on a DSL link and although I warned them it was a bad idea they said it would be okay because the RTU had username/password protection and the RTU had nothing important on it.

The punchline is that a few days later the customer sent me an email saying they couldn't FTP into the RTU anymore, so couldn't check the log files.

I looked, and the RTU now had 3 TCP sockets open (all the sockets allocated for FTP on this RTU) to some FTP client at an IP address registered in Korea. All 3 were just slowly walking through a dictionary attack of username/passwords (user bill, pass honda14 ... user billk, pass 12tomes ...) No doubt the IP and FTP client belonged to some university student running kiddy-scripts obtained on the Internet. No doubt the kid probably didn't even care if the odd device he or she had never seen before was not a computer (FTP servers always announce what and who they are when you connect). No doubt this attack wasn't costing them anything, as either the university or parents were paying for the Internet connection - or the IP and connection belonged to some patsy whose home computer had been compromised.

So okay, it was not causing any real harm, except it defeated the purpose of enabling FTP since the end user no longer had access to FTP. I suppose you could call it a denial-of-service attack, yet I'm sure that was NOT the intension of the 'attacker'. The student was probably just hoping to be able to post a message on some forum saying 'I hacked a computer at this IP address in the USA, and here is the FTP user name and password I created for you to access.' The fact that the RTU only contained a dozen binary log files would be irrelevant.

Do I have a moral to this story? Hmm, not really - other than industrial users have to understand that what is NOT interesting to them might be interesting to others for very different reasons.

If this user had allowed me to change the FTP port to some random value like TCP port 38207, then it is very likely this particular student would NOT have found it. Since true port-scans are so easy to detect, the student's tool probably had a list of a few dozen TCP ports commonly used by FTP servers, then it would randomly try them over a few weeks at any single target IP.

The same story could be true for web servers on TCP port 80 (or 8000 or 8080). Digi ships our cellular products with the web server enabled on port 80 because that is what customers expect. Sure, they add a username and password, but what will happen to their data plan bill if their 3MB per month plan moves 3-GigaByte because some scripts are trying dictionary attacks on the login of home web page?

I've had to always mention that 3GB part (meaning a $500+ bill for a month) since every time I mention to such users not to leave port 80 setup as a web browser, the industrial customer's answer is invariably '... it'll be okay because the unit has username/password protection and it has nothing worth trying to see on it ... '

Cellular to Wireless Zigbee

2008-05-22T09:34:00.000-07:00

An interesting new market we are moving into is cellular access to wireless mesh (Zigbee as example). In some sense it's a supply-chain dream come true. Imagine you supply a product to customers and EVERYONE (except the customer's IT department) want you to be able to see what the stock level is and auto-schedule deliveries.

The customer benefits because they can treat the product as a 'utility' - turn the tap and there it is.

You benefit because you can minimize emergency truck-rolls - no more angry, panicked customers demanding you send a truck over two-thirds empty because someone forgot to schedule a special delivery because the customer needed to use 60% more product for two days. Of course as a supplier the cost of the truck, fuel, and driver are critical parts of your margin/profit. You desire to only send out full trucks which return gracefully empty!

So we are now working with several of the largest chemical suppliers in the world to enable:

drop in a powered cellular unit at the customer site
drop in powered or battery tank sensors
log levels hourly, for the supplier to upload daily (reduces cellular data charges) The supplier uses this as their 'secret-sauce', their own proprietary value-add to predict when trucks need to roll to maximize efficiency
enable alarm call-out if the levels hit unexpected low-low levels

How this works varies by suppliers. The one I'm working with is using Modbus/TCP to pull up the logs daily. Some other suppliers are having SMTP clients push emails back to the supplier with XML formatted reports. The next supplier I might work will wants the binary logs to be compressed (ZIP'd) and then pushed upstream once a day by FTP, where their accounting system will convert from binary to XML to import and issue bills on product usage per MINUTE.

Of course key to all of this is the wireless drop-in-network concept. The supplier doesn't want to invest thousands of dollars pulling wires through SOMEONE ELSE'S PLANT - especially when the supplier's contract might end in a few months.

Wireless sensors aren't new; cellular data access isn't new; supply-chain systems which auto-detect product levels aren't new. What is new here is the merger of many technologies which reduce infra-structure costs, and thus increase ROI.

PCCC Protected Typed Logical Write with Mask

2008-03-14T07:42:00.000-07:00

Someone asked about the "DF1 Supplement for SLC500" from 1995 which was online at ab.com for a short period, then was pulled - probably because it is a very poor quality optical scan. However, I had it ... then lost it ... then found it stashed away on one of my ftp sites.

So here is the original AB PDF (which I downloaded from ab.com last year) Grab it here while it survives.

The masked write is on page 11 and the first data-word is the mask and all data following has the SAME mask applied. So [0x0001,0x0000] would clear the LSBit and so on. It doesn't offer mask-data pairs - just one mask and N words. Thus this command is mainly for use with 1 word element writes ... unless you have three or four consecutive N-file words you wish having the same mask applied.

Optimizing Modbus for Cellular

2008-03-07T09:27:00.000-08:00

Goal: lower your data costs

How nice it would be if you could take your Ethernet applications and just move them to cellular (or satellite). Well, of course you can ... but you'll pay through the nose for this.

At the moment I'm in the process of creating intelligent cellular gateways accessible by Modbus/UDP (aka Modbus/TCP form in UDP) which support data logging, report-by-exception and other cost-saving goodies.

A few Facts:

You are charged for all IP, TCP, and UDP overhead - the cellular system moves your TCP/IP packet as raw payload encapsulated in mobile-IP or other transports. So to them the 40-52 bytes TCP/IP header as NOT DISTINGUISHED from your data. ( My Blog entry on this )
Thus Modbus/UDP (aka Modbus/TCP in UDP/IP) will save you from 60 to 90% of your data costs. It is a single one-shot request followed by a single one-shot response. In contrast TCP/IP might require up to 400 bytes of socket open & close overhead, plus TCP acknowledge packets.

So if you are concerned about cost, you should first make sure your DATA POLLING can be done with Modbus/UDP - not TCP. No sweat if you need to use Modbus/TCP to reprogram or monitor your RTU or PLC short-term, just make sure your 24/7 repetitive data polling in via UDP. ( Is UDP reliable enough? )

So I've defined a few extensions (read as 'heresy' to many). Full Details are Here at iatips.com:

I allow use of the full Modbus/TCP header - so one can read 500 registers in a single request. This greatly reduces charges for header overhead
I allow returns LESS than data than requested when the context is appropriate. This saves having to pay for data padding, plus not having to poll a status register to see how much logged data is waiting
I allow use of data compression like ZLIB. Bottomline, 'ZIP' compression of small data sucks, but since I can return 500 registers (1K bytes) ZLIB starts showing value.
I allow packing multiple Modbus-ADU below a single header, which (unlike pipelining) signals the gateway to return multiple responses in a single packet.
I am looking at support for simple AES encryption, not as true 'security', but as a good-enough means to support Modbus without making development difficult.

If you are interested in the details, I have more discussion on my wiki site.

Lost My SIM

2008-03-07T09:21:00.000-08:00

Well, I've been quiet for awhile - lost my "free development SIM" as part of Cingular's reorg into AT&T. Thus my collection of PLC with free demo access are off-line. Is interesting to support cellular without a SIM ... not that my boss is ignoring this, but there are 'plans in the works' which involve several companies ... plans which just keep moving out.

However, I am working on Cellular gateways with intelligence now. Goal is to allow a Modbus client/master to come in once per day and upload time-stamped logs; plus if certain events occur use Modbus to call for help.

How Exposed in Public Cellular IP

2007-10-05T10:28:00.000-07:00

One of the concerns about having a PUBLIC IP address for cellular is your exposure to public hackers probing public IPs for services. In theory, you pay for all of these attempts since the mobile IP system encapsulates and transports them all on your behalf.

I'm happy to report that after logging such attempts for many months my cellular devices receive less than 4 probes in any one day and likely under 20 total per month. So many days pass with no probes at all and it appears to stay under 2-3K per month. This compares to perhaps 200 probes per day on my DSL router/firewall.

I am not sure why the difference, although I'd guess it has to do with the high initial latency in contacting a cellular IP. So any "script-kiddie" tool scanning IP address ranges probably is not willing to wait up to 5 seconds for cellular devices on busy towers which need "unparking" to respond.

What kinds of probes are they? Mainly those looking for MS-SQL servers, with a rare access to FTP and the remainder of accesses aimed to seemingly random, unnamed ports - likely associated with trojans or zombie networks.

The Truth about Cellular IP

2007-08-22T06:19:00.000-07:00

I have been very busy analyzing real-world telemetry traffic over cellular IP, and unfortunately I am now 100% convinced that you cannot effectively use most (any?) off-the-shelf "Ethernet" software tool to talk to remote Ethernet devices over cellular IP. Bottom-line is that - unless your host app is custom written to be data cost and time delay sensitive - your data costs will be bloated due to the nature of the tool. Even something as "obvious" as adding compression doesn't solve the problem because telemetry packets tend to be too small for effective compression. For example: an 8-byte Modbus/RTU request becomes 12-bytes after ZIP-style compression. Plus this doesn't reduce the 104-bytes of TCP overhead nor 28-bytes of UDP overhead. None of the cellular providers allow use of RFC-class TCP header compression, since it requires all of the infra-structure to maintain
copies of headers etc.

So I have been working on "reduction" solutions - how to obtain the effect of moving "X" IP packets but only moving "X-minus-a-bunch" of actual IP packets.

Tunneling TCP thru UDP
The most promising and generic form of reduction is to tunnel TCP/IP via UDP/IP over cellular. So the host application talks TCP/IP to a local proxy, which acts as the TCP end-point. All of the TCP SYN, ACK and Keepalive traffic is limited to the local Ethernet. The local proxy then initiates a UDP "session" with a remote proxy over cellular & we instantly see a 60-90% reduction in data costs. The remote proxy initiates a TCP/IP connection to the remote Ethernet device, which again isolated the extra TCP overhead to the remote Ethernet.

The reaction of non-IA network engineers to this idea is predictable and a bit humorous after a while. They immediately say "You cannot do that!!! UDP/IP is unreliable!!! You'll break something!!! You are committing a mortal Sin!!!" But in reality none of the IA protocols leverage the reliability of TCP anyway. For example, Rockwell RSLogix doesn't send a program block to a ControlLogix and blindly assume it was successful after the TCP Acknowledge from the peer is processed. Instead, RSLogix sits (blocks literally) and waits for a successful CIP response on a single CIP Connection. So if the local proxy returns a TCP-ACK to the RSLogix host and the CIP request is lost within the UDP/IP tunnel ... eventually RSLogix times out the CIP connection and the application (and/or user) will restart.

Fortunately, cellular is very reliable - all of my tests sending 10,000 UDP packets rarely even lost 1 packet and I'm not sure if such a rare loss is due to cellular or just my test script hiccupping & dropping a packet. Plus cellular tends to have only very bursty error problems. In other words, you won't lose 1 packet per 10,000; instead you'll lose all packets for 5 minutes or just 5 random packets out of a group of 10 sent. This shotgun-damage tends to confuse TCP/IP state machines to the point that they abort the connection anyway. In truth, in all of my Wireshark/Ethereal trace reviewing I have never seen a single situation where a TCP retry did anything but add data cost; every TCP retransmission just results in a "Duplicate ACK" showing up a few packets below in the trace & a doubling of the cost of that block of data.

So overall, anyone planning to use cellular should first investigate if they can use UDP/IP instead of TCP/IP.

TCP Problem #1 - added cost for pointless ACK
As mentioned above, real-world analysis of telemetry use of TCP shows the TCP ACK isn't useful; but worse, Embedded TCP devices tend to sub-optimize the ACK timing to "speed up" data transmission and recovery. Almost universally moving an IA protocol via TCP/IP results in 4 TCP packets instead of the idealized 3.

Your app sends a TCP request (request data size + 40-52 bytes of overhead)
800-1100 msec later your app receives a TCP ACK without data (another 40-52 bytes of overhead)
10-40 msec later your app receives the protocol response (response data size + 40-52 bytes of overhead)
Within a few msec, your app sends the TCP ACK without data.

So what would have been a 2-packet transaction with only 56 bytes of overhead under UDP/IP, or what should have been a 3-packet transaction with 120-156 bytes of overhead under ideal TCP/IP usually becomes a 4-packet transaction with 160-208 bytes of overhead. Yes, there exists a TCP socket option and the concept of "Delayed ACK Timer" to prevent the first empty TCP ack from being returned over cellular, but few embedded products use this since it adds code complexity, and it slows down overall data communications. At least in the IA world it seems everyone wants their Ethernet Product costing 2-4 times more than their serial product to appear lightning fast. So they ignore the TCP community's decades of hard-earned experience and "hack" their TCP stack to sub-optimize fast local Ethernet performance.

So this is where the instant 60-90% data cost savings of using UDP over TCP comes from. UDP has smaller headers and results in fewer packets being sent. Since the cellular IP system is "encapsulating" your TCP/IP packets in a manner similar to PPP, the entire IP header, TCP or UDP header, and your data is all considered billable payload.

There is also a myth propagated to this day that the TCP ack causes retry to occur more rapidly out in the wide-area-network infrastructure. The rhetoric goes, "If the 3rd and 4th router link is congested and the TCP data packet is lost, then the 3rd router will retransmit ... which is faster ..." Perhaps this was true back in the 1980's, but today the 3rd and 4th router (and all of the other 20 to 30 routers in a cellular end-to-end path) are just tossing IP packets upstream with no awareness of the packet functions. In reality, it is only the TCP state machines within your host machine and within your remote device that have any ability to retransmit anything.

TCP Problem #2 - added cost for premature retry
The TCP RFC includes many dynamic timers that automatically adjust themselves based on real-world performance. This is actually pretty neat. It means if the TCP ACK and response times tend to be longer than normal, then the TCP state-machine slowly increases the delay before retransmission. But I've seen 3 problems with this.

The most effective way to leverage auto-adjust is to include the 12-byte TCP header options that time-stamps all packets. Linux system add this by default and installing one of many PLC engineering tools on your Windows computers causes Windows to also start always using this. The setting generally is global - you either have 40-byte TCP headers or 52-byte TCP headers forever. So for small telemetry packets, this adds a disproportionately large increase in data costs.
Many embedded devices (PLC, RTU and I/O devices) have "hacked" the TCP ACK sub-system to force connection failure to be faster than the standard 3-4 minutes. For example, I worked with one large PLC company which expected TCP sockets failure in less than 1 second, so they forced TCP retransmission in hundreds of msec and without any normal exponential backoff between retries. This is totally unusable over cellular; you will end up with 30% to 90% of your data traffic being premature retries and responses to premature retries. I have literally seen Wireshark/Ethereal traces which are mainly black lines with red text - which is the default color used to show TCP "problems" such as lost-frag, retrans, dup-ack, etc.
The latency in cellular is abnormal by an order of magnitude. Even browsing the internet or doing a telemetry polling test over DSL/cable broadband averages latencies in the 100-150 msec range. This is what a Windows or Linux defines as "slow/bad" - not the 800 to 3500msec of cellular. So even watching a Windows or Linux TCP state machine auto-adjust the retransmission delay over time, you will not see it achieve a 100% effective setting which eliminates wasted TCP retransmissions. The delay seems to top out
at about 1.5 to 1.8 seconds, which is just too close to the actual "normal" latency range. So again, use of UDP/IP frees the use user from data costs associated with TCP legacy assumptions - both the main-stream MIS/IT market variety of assumptions and the misapplied IA vendors "speed-ups".

TCP Problem #3 - uncontrollable SYN/Socket Opens

Given the way all cellular systems "park" inactive cellular data devices, it is exceedingly rare to ever see a host app open a new TCP socket without prematurely retrying/retransmitting the SYN packet. This is because one is virtually guaranteed that it will take about 2.5 seconds for the data device to be given active airwave resources and return the SYN+ACK response. This has NOTHING to do with the "always connected" feature Digi and others claim. The data device (even when parked) is fully connected by IP and fully authenticated by the system - it is "always connected". However, the local cell tower only has finite airwave resources, so any device (cell phone or data device) which is idle from 3 to 45 seconds is "parked" without having any preallocated airwave resources. Literally when the TCP "SYN" shows up, the cell tower has to use the control channel to inform the data device to request airwave resources, and after these are requested and allocated the data device can receive and response to the TCP socket open request.

But that's not the real problem related to TCP Socket Opens ... the real problem is yet another case of IA vendors sub-optimizing TCP behavior for fast local Ethernet performance. For example, I once had a customer who normally paid about $40 per month receive a $2000 bill one month. It turns out they had powered down the remote site for 3+ days and the off-the-shelf 3rd-party host application they used would try to reopen the TCP socket every 5 seconds!!! So Windows would send the initial TCP SYN to start the open, since the remote was off-line Windows would retransmit this TCP SYN a few seconds later. After a total of 5 seconds, the application would ABORT this TCP socket attempt and start a new one. So this host app was pushing 24 billable TCP packets per minute out to a remote site that was powered down. This was nothing the host app vendor documented, nor was it anything a user could configure or over-ride. The user could configure the host app to ONLY poll once per 5 minutes; but the user had no control over this run-away TCP SYN/Open behavior.

Tunneling TCP through UDP effectively decouples the TCP SYN/Open from cellular data charges. The first TCP Syn/Open request to the local proxy would succeed even if the remote IP site is offline. No retries would be required. Even if the host app attempts to retry the data poll every 5 seconds, this is something the UDP proxy can be configured to "resist". If the user truly wants data packets to only move every few minutes, that is something the UDP proxy can easily enforce.

TCP Problem #4 - sub-optimized TCP keepalive

The final problem I'll discuss (but not by any means the "last" problem with TCP) is that many embedded IA devices have relatively fast TCP Keepalives hard-coded to speed up lost-socket detection. While this is an admirable goal, a Rockwell PLC sending out a TCP Keepalive at a fixed 45 second interval can create up to 6MB of monthly traffic by doing this. Siemens S7 PLC seem to issue TCP keepalive every 60 seconds - a bit better, but not by much. Maybe such a heart-beat is useful to know the remote is accessible, but given the reliability of cell phones (when the last time you had a dropped call or no signal ...) you'll obtain a lot of false-alarms if you treat every missed packets as something requiring maintenance's attention.

Again, tunneling TCP through UDP effectively eliminates the automatic, possibly uncontrollable use of TCP Keepalive. If your process can handle you talking to it once an hour, then the cost of TCP socket open and close, as well as any TCP Keepalive is all wasted investment.

Not only this, but the cellular providers do NOT want users who send a simple, rather empty packet every 30 to 60 seconds - this is literally the worst kind of customer, as this forces the cell tower to "waste" one of its very limited airwave resources with almost no income returned to the carrier. From what I hear, carriers either want customers who talk constantly and pay huge monthly fees (say $90 to $350/month); or they want customers who rare talk and pay a small fee (even just $5/mo) but cost the carrier virtually no direct expenses.

Putting this is "restaurant terms":

A cellular data device that talks constantly but pays for a large plan is like a restaurant patron who sits at a table, constantly ordering more food and paying a larger bill.
A cellular data device that rarely talks is like the restaurant patron who comes in once a month, sits at a table, orders a meal, pays and then vacates the table.
A cellular data device that keeps an idle channel open full time but rarely talks is like the restuarant patron who sits at a table in the resturant, reading the paper but rarely ordering food or paying a bill.

In fact, in private chats with carrier account people, I have heard several times that they have been directly to prefer either customers who talk constantly on large plans or those who talk at most once an hour (better once a day) on small plans. Customers planning to talk every few minutes have been defined as bad investments. It may be fair to say that after years of building up the data-plan customer base, the cellular carriers have come to understand that the REAL cost of data plans is not the bulk data bytes moved; it is instead the percentage of time the device consumes (or squats on) 1-of-N scare airwave resources in proportion to the monthly fee they pay.

Report-By-Exception? Maybe not

2007-07-06T07:55:00.000-07:00

One of the PLC vendors I am just starting to deal with was bragging about the power of their report by expection abilities ... how wonderful for lower cellular data costs they claim. Unfortunately they only support TCP/IP - no UDP/IP. I'll cover this application (& name the PLC) more after I have some time to work at it.

However, the big problem with their "report-by-expection" is that the PLC holds the TCP/IP socket open 24/7 and sends a TCP Keepalive every 1 minute. Sending a TCP Keepalive (2 x TCP packet headers with no data) every 60 seconds costs about 3.4MB per month! I have a hard time seeing that as "low cost". They would be better to just poll real data every 4 minutes and eliminate the TCP keepalives!

Hopefully there is a setting in the PLC to change this behavior, which is why I need to look into this more. I just want to point out that just because a system claims to only move data during exceptions ... that does NOT mean it has very low cellular data costs. Don't forget that data costs include things you don't normally see - TCP socket open/close, TCP keepalive, TCP ack, and TCP retransmissions are all things you pay for.

Real World Cellular - ControlLogix PLC

2007-06-12T11:43:00.000-07:00

Summary: Before I listed some real world numbers for Modbus polling. This time I walk through some of the costs and issues of using ODVA Ethernet/IP to talk to a Rockwell ControlLogix PLC.

The Convoluted Path of Wide-Area-Networks:
In general the magic of IP hides reality from us all. We tend to think "now I am browsing Google.com or iatips.com", but we don't really understand how COMPLEX and MIRACULOUS this really is. Your computer is NOT connected to either of these web servers; instead your computer uses the services of a dozen or more other computers/routers to get from "here" to "there". Every single data byte must be forwarded hop-by-hop through all of these cooperative peers.

As example, here is a Trace Route (tracert) of access from a computer within my test lab to a ControlLogix PLC sitting six (6) feet away. I am using public Internet access via a cellular Digi Connect WAN to the Ethernet (ENB) of the ControlLogix. Some of the public IP have "X" entered replacing the digits; you don't need to really know the exact IP value.

My computer has private IP = 10.9.92.1
01 01 ms 10.9.1.1 (Digi's private Intranet)
02 01 ms 10.10.11.10 (Digi's private Intranet)
03 01 ms 10.254.254.2 (Digi's private Intranet)
04 16 ms 66.77.x.x (Digi Co-Host/Internet Link)
05 04 ms 69.8.x.x (Digi Co-Host/Internet Link)
06 64 ms 66.77.x.x (Digi Co-Host/Internet Link)
07 09 ms min-core-02.inet.qwest.net [205.171.128.110]
08 11 ms cer-core-02.inet.qwest.net [67.14.8.18]
09 12 ms cer-brdr-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.139.62]
10 39 ms qwest-gw.cgcil.ip.att.net [192.205.32.97]
11 35 ms tbr2.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.4.254]
12 35 ms tbr2.sl9mo.ip.att.net [12.122.10.46]
13 75 ms tbr2.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.10.137]
14 31 ms 12.122.85.157
15 34 ms 12.86.140.146
16 * Request timed out. (Part of Cellular Infra-Structure)
17 * Request timed out.
18 * Request timed out.
19 * Request timed out.
20 1276 ms mobile-166-XXX-XXX-XXX.mycingular.net [166.XXX.XXX.XXX]
Digi Connect WAN has private local IP = 192.168.196.80 (is 'gateway')
ControlLogix PLC has private local IP = 192.168.196.21

These traces always amaze me - how something so seemingly trivial takes so much effort to really function. Notice how my lab PC has to route through 6 devices to even get out of Digi's company network, then through Qwest (our ISP), through AT&T (my cellular SIM provider), through some unnamed hops of the cell system, and finally be port forwarded to the ControlLogix PLC. The packets may be passing through Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, and then finally returning to the PLC sitting right beside me.

Effect of NAT (Network Address Translation)
Now lets look at what happens when RSLinx on my PC opens an ODVA Ethernet/IP socket to the ControlLogix PLC. Every TCP/IP packet requires 4 unique values which define a connection:

Destination IP (target device)
Destination Port (target application within device)
Source IP (return address to originator)
Source Port (likely random port, originator is waiting for responses here)

So we start out with the 4-tuple DST=166.x.x.x : 44818 and SRC=10.9.92.1 : 22256. The 166.x.x.x IP is assigned by my cellular carrier. Port 44818 is ODVA's "well-known" port for Ethernet/IP. 10.9.92.1 is an internal Digi selected private IP. TCP port 22256 is the ephemeral (or random) port selected by RSLinx to listen for responses.

The first NAT effect is the Digi corporate firewall changes the request to be DST=166.x.x.x : 44818 and SRC=66.77.x.x : 22256. My private IP of 10.9.92.1 is meaningless out in the Qwest or AT&T's networks, so something needs to swap this for a "real" world-unique IP leased by Digi. Our corporate NAT interface creates a record (with a lifetime of 5 minutes) that allows any responses to be correctly restored to 10.9.92.1

The second NAT effect is when the Digi Connect WAN forwards to the ControlLogix with another private IP. So the 4-tuple now becomes DST=192.168.196.21 : 44818 and SRC=66.77.x.x : 22256. The ControlLogix thinks IP host 66.77.something is connected to it - not the real host IP of 10.9.92.1. Plus the ControlLogix has NOT CLUE that the RSLinx thinks the ControlLogix as IP of 166.something.

Now, to send a response the ControlLogix issues a TCP/IP packet with the flipped 4-tuple of DST=66.77.x.x : 22256 and SRC=192.168.196.21 : 44818. The Digi Connect WAN restores (undoes) the NAT and changes this to DST=66.77.x.x : 22256 and SRC=166.x.x.x : 44818. After passing back through AT&T and Qwest, Digi's corporate NAT interface restores its own NAT and changes it back to DST=10.9.92.1 : 22256 and SRC=166.x.x.x : 44818.

This understanding of NAT and IP is useful for understanding the capability and limitations of cellular access to certain devices with certain protocols. A future entry will cover setting up RSLinx Classic and using RSLogix 5000 to download over cellular to a L5555 processor.

Unlimited Cellular Data - Revisted

2007-05-31T12:23:00.000-07:00

As I go around dealing with large utility customers and hear feedback from Digi salespeople who survive large accounts, I hear some interesting but disturbing trends rising.

First, there are the people (usually who are new to cellular) who claim any day now the age of cheap, unlimited cellular data plans means all my hard work to understand or offer reduced traffic are wasted effort. I especially hear this coming from European partners.

Then there are the other people ... people I know work with very large, very powerful end users who fail to get the cellular plans they desire. Things I hear:

I have heard of customers who pilot projects and hear promises of unlimited traffic, but when the time comes to sign the contract for 3000+ sites, the carrier decides that they cannot offer unlimited traffic ... period. Hmm, I guess this is the difference showing between the carrier's commissioned sales staff and the business managers who need to keep the cellular system profitable.
I have worked with large customers who do manage to get "unlimited deals" for a modest sized system - say 50 or 100 sites, but the carrier insists on adding the 2 clauses 1) the carrier has the right to artificially slow down the data communications (without detailing what this means) and 2) the carrier has the right to just stop all the customer's data traffic temporarily if the cell system gets busy (again, not details of this defined). Hmm, I have to kind of wonder what kind of control engineer agrees to such "clauses"? You'd think trying to get one's data under control to avoid the need for unlimited data is a wiser design.
I have heard that overall the cellular carriers are starting to rethink the value of machine-to-machine data plans. Unlike DSL or cable, this is NOT an issue of bandwidth; it is an issue of the % of the time the device "hogs" 1 of N slots or resources on the tower forever. Imagine having 10 or 20 such devices squatting there, locking up that tower resource. So it is not even so much an issue of talking once per few minutes verse flat out unlimited traffic. In either case 1 of N finite tower resources is used, so long-term the only "good" data plan may be for a data system using the cellular resource every few hours or a few times a day.

So overall it looks like my efforts to understand and reduce traffic is useful.

I will give Webinar 31-May-2007

2007-05-29T12:00:00.000-07:00

31-May-2007 (Thursday) I'll be giving a webinar related to outdoor use of IP-to-serial devices. While not directly related to my blog theme of "Industrial Protocols over IP", remote devices frequently are in bad locations, where extended temperature ranges, conformal coating, and Class 1 Div 2 certs are desired.

Title: Connect Local and Remote Devices in Hazardous Environment SCADA Applications
Register here: WebEx Link

Date: May 31, 2007
Time: 11:00am CDT (central zone)
Duration: 1 hour
Speakers:

Lynn Linse - Engineer, Digi International
Deb Smith - Business Development, Digi International

What you will learn
This live webinar will illustrate the value of using TCP/IP & UDP/IP based communication over wired and wireless networks to monitor and manage local and remote devices. Topics include:

Overview of requirements for robust, remote, outdoor communication devices
Discussion of extended temperature, conformal coating, hazardous certs
Comparing features of IT-grade network devices to Digi's Haz product line
Extending IP networks to remote serial and Ethernet devices
Moving serial communications through TCP/IP and UDP/IP
Migrating from analog Telco/POTS lines to IP-based broadband
Real-world usage examples
Implementation benefits
- Real-time access to remote sites and process data without site visits
- Reduce repair/replacement costs due to less-than ideal environments
- Options to reduce installation costs with wireless

Please register today and join us May 31st for this informative webinar!
Questions? Contact Deb Smith at deb_smith@digi.com or 952-912-3283.

ODVA, Rockwell, and Modbus Get Smart

2007-05-04T12:53:00.000-07:00

Summary: next week an amazing joining of technologies will take place at ODVA in Ann Arbor MI as ODVA, Rockwell, and Schneider-Electric discuss how to integrate Modbus servers (slaves) into CIP Producer/Consumer systems

One of the fun things about being involved in "multi-vendor" solutions is when you recognize moments of amazing sanity as they occur. One such moment of amazing sanity is occurring next week when ODVA (aka Rockwell / Allen-Bradley) and Modbus supporters (aka Schneider-Electric / Modicon / SquareD / Telemecanique) sit down to discuss how to integrate Modbus devices into the ODVA Ethernet/IP and CIP network systems. Of course there must be some interesting hidden politics behind this move - and I somewhat light-heartedly believe that perhaps French Schneider-Electric sees joining with the Americans (Rockwell/ODVA) as the lesser of two evils when compared to joining with the Germans (Siemens/PNO).

Check out: ODVA Call For Members: Modbus Integration JSIG The kick-off meeting for the Modbus JSIG runs from Thursday, May 10, 11:00 AM to Friday, May 11, 04:00 PM

Side-stepping the marketing fluff and platitudes of a brighter future such meetings evoke, small third-party suppliers and the folks on the plant floor can expect the following benefits. Regardless of the directly stated goals of ODVA, Rockwell, or Schneider-Electric, small vendors will implement solutions that include these abilities:

Vendors making Ethernet Modbus/TCP products will have a simpler "first step" to adding full ODVA/CIP support without the somewhat overwhelming task of 100% conversion of a word-array device model into hundreds (or thousands) of CIP objects.
ControlLogix PLC will be able to connect through Ethernet-to-Serial devices to multi-drops of Modbus/RTU slaves. For example a user with a dozen small Modbus/RTU PID loop controllers will be able to add an Ethernet-to-Serial device to read via Modbus and cyclically produce a small block of word data from each loop controller over Ethernet.
HART, Bluetooth, ZigBee and other new technologies which offer Modbus interfaces will find a instant place as sensors and I/O within CIP and Rockwell systems.
Since Siemens, GE-Fanuc, Omron, Mitsubishi and most major PLC brands offer some method to act as Modbus slaves, users with any of these PLC will be able to integrate them within the CIP Producer/Consumer system.

Looking forward a year or two, I also can foresee some other secondary benefits evolving from this JSIG's work:

I started working with ODVA Ethernet/IP almost 8 years ago and still as-of today the legacy PLC5E, SLC5, and serial MicroLogix (the old PCCC-based PLC) don't have effective inclusion within CIP Producer/Consumer systems. Since the device model of PCCC PLC shares much in common with Modbus PLC, it is a very small enhancement to add a similar support for AB PLC - perhaps AB will actually extend this to future firmware updates to Ethernet-based PLC. In fact, since my Digi One IAP code already allows Modbus masters to query DF1 and CSPv4 slaves as-if Modbus slaves, as soon as Digi adds Ethernet-to-Modbus support per this JSIG's output users of older AB PLC will gain access to CIP Producer/Consumer systems indirectly as honorary Modbus slaves.
Today legacy Modbus and Modbus/TCP systems lack any simple form of multicast producer/consumer exchange. While the IDA protocol offers this, IDA is so many orders of magnitude more complex (and resource hungry) than simple Modbus as to become really an "unrelated" protocol. Any specification that defines a "server interface" naturally implies a corresponding "client interface". So although this ODVA JSIG is not planning to define how Modbus "peers" could use multicast to exchange cyclic data, the end result will be a fairly natural and multi-vendor method to do this. So while I doubt many pure Modbus/TCP products would implement ODVA protocols just to gain this multicast exchange, any products which add the CIP support anyway will naturally add the last few bits of code required to enable pure Modbus-to-Modbus multicast via the ODVA mechanism.
Taking the above point to its natural conclusion means Modbus/TCP masters which implement the Modbus JSIG's "server" function will also gain a mechanism to access CIP Producer/Consumer systems. Even if the ODVA JSIG doesn't cover how to do this, natural methods will be inferred, produced, and copied by vendors to make this a fairly common new product feature.

And lastly, it will interesting to see what response PNO considers to likewise include Modbus slaves more formally into PROFINET. Personally, I have always felt that the simpler PROFINET IO protocol would fit very naturally with multi-drops of Modbus slaves acting like plug in I/O modules ... each slave would be a module within the IO device.

Rockwell and Modbus Data Traffic

2007-04-25T10:09:00.000-07:00

Summary: I compare the data costs for four common off-the-shelf PLC protocols to a remote cellular site. As a rule of thumb, even if you have an Ethernet-based PLC your lowest data costs for SCADA-style periodic polling are obtained using serial protocols via the PLC's serial port. Their modern "Ethernet protocols" are very wasteful of cellular bandwidth.

PLC Protocol Example:
A simple but realistic SCADA scenario is to poll every 15 minutes and read 10 words of data and write 2 words of data. This commonly requires 1 Read command and 1 Write command (I'll ignore the rarely supported Modbus command that reads & writes within a single command.)

While there exists special SCADA protocols and special products that optimize remote traffic, I am not looking at those protocols at the moment. Instead, since cellular and satellite access to remote IP and Ethernet products has enabled people to use off-the-shelf PLC technology, I am looking at the more traditional PLC protocols. These are things which affect users when they apply an Ethernet design to an IP-based wide-area-network system.

I compare these 4 PLC protocols:

AB/DF1 Radio Modem (RM) encapsulated in UDP/IP. DF1 RM is basically DF1 Full-Duplex with no ACK/NAK and is supported by the SLC5 and MicroLogix line.
Modbus/RTU encapsulated in UDP/IP. Modbus/TCP within UDP/IP is roughly the same size.
AB/CSPv4 in TCP/IP as supported by SLC5/05 and PLC5E MSG blocks.
AB/Ethernet/IP as moved by ControlLogix Explicit MSG blocks to PCCC-based remote PLC. Note that Ethernet/IP "I/O Messaging" does NOT work through NAT'd wide-area-networks since the protocol embeds IP information within the data packets and is thus is "broken" by NAT.

The bytes per 15 minutes includes the IP headers, any PLC protocol overhead, and the actual data moved for each update (always 20 + 4 bytes). The MB per month is just defined by 30 days of such polling, or 2880 updates at once per 15 minutes. The 2 serial protocol have been encapsulated into UDP/IP and I assume the remote IP end-point can handle connecting this to the PLC's serial port.

Protocol	Transport	Per 15 Min	MB per month	Relative Cost
Ethernet/IP	TCP/IP	1202 bytes	3.46 MB	100%
AB/CSPv4	TCP/IP	960 bytes	2.76 MB	80%
Modbus/RTU	UDP/IP	166 bytes	0.48 MB	14%
DF1 Radio Modem	UDP/IP	194 bytes	0.56 MB	16%

The two Rockwell "Ethernet" protocols cost a lot more to use in part because they force use of TCP/IP, and therefore suffer the repeated cost of TCP socket opening and closing, plus extra TCP acknowledgment overhead. They also suffer because they both involve connection registration and service functions that needlessly repeat every time the connection is reestablished. While the actual data packets of these protocols are roughly twice the size of the serial encapsulated protocols, the real burden they suffer is all the extra TCP/IP packets exchanged that do NOT directly involve field data update.

Both the serial Modbus/RTU and DF1 Radio Modem benefit that they move no IP packets that don't relate to the field data update - no TCP/IP open or close or acknowledgement; no protocol "service function" overhead. Each moves just 1 read request and 1 read response, plus 1 write request and 1 write response.

Discussion of Other PLC Protocols:

Most other PLC Ethernet protocols will either approach the costs of the AB/CSPv4 - or they won't work at all due to use of direct "Ether-Types" and lack of IP compatibility. Most serial protocols with roughly either match the 2 show here or be twice the cost if protocol ACKs are used by the protocol.

Modbus/ASCII will almost double the cost of Modbus/RTU since each data packet is roughly twice the size. But this wouldn't increase the IP overhead any.

Using DF1 Full-Duplex instead of Radio Modem would effectively double the cost over DF1 RM since DF1 Full-Duplex moves the protocol ACK/NAK, which doubles the IP header overhead also. Using DF1 Half-Duplex would triple or even quadruple the costs since HD not only moves protocol DF1 ACK/NAKs, but the ENQ/EOT polling overhead.

Most other protocols I am aware of - such as Omron Hostlink, GE-Fanuc SNPX, and Siemens PPI - would cost roughly 2 to 3 times more than Modbus/RTU or DF1 RM since they include protocol ACK, while a few even encode many parts of the message as ASCII or BCD form instead of as binary.

Rockwell PLC5E and SLC5 over Cellular

2007-04-19T09:18:00.000-07:00

Summary: Customers ask me "How much will cellular cost" - this blog post walks through some examples of SCADA-style periodic polling of AB/PLC5E or SLC5/05 using the CSPv4 protocol (aka AB/Ethernet to 3rd parties) over TCP port 2222.

Real-World Numbers
For a simple SCADA-style example assume we need to read 10 words of data (20 bytes) and write 2 words (4 bytes) every time period. Obviously there would be simple optimizations to this, such as only writing data which changes or using PLC MSG blocks to push data from PLC to SCADA only when something changes. However my goal in this blog post isn't to "tweak" a solution to minimize cost, but to examine the protocol impact of using Rockwell CSPv4 over IP.

The table below shows the megabyte per month when polling once per second, per 5 seconds, per 1 minute, per 5 minutes, per 15 minutes, and per 1 hour. There are lots of variables considered ... and many more ignored. The traffic ranges from worst-case of 1005.0 MB for TCP/IP with larger header options polled once per second to best case of 0.2 MB for UDP/IP polled once per hour. This assumes the use of the CSPv4 submode 7, with local LSAP addressing and ignores that Rockwell PLC5E and SLC5/05 don't support CSPv4 within UDP/IP. Raw efficiency at moving the data bytes ranges for about 10% for UDP/IP to barely 1% for TCP/IP; which means most of what you are paying for is not related to actual, meaningful field data.

( Click this image to see a larger version )

(is at http://iatips.com/blogimage/rockwell_cspv4_traffic.png)

Notes on the Table

Since this example reads and writes small amounts of data, it assumes a SLC5-style Protected Typed Read with 3-Address Fields and the corresponding SLC5 write.

The smaller 40 byte TCP/IP header has no options attached; the larger 52-byte TCP/IP header includes the RFC 1323 Timestamp and Window Scale TCP options. These appear to be the normal default for Linux and easily becomes enabled under Windows since all applications share a single setting in the Registry.

The two time columns "15 min (Alive)" and "1 hr (Alive) assume a roughly 4 min 45 sec TCP keepalive to prevent the socket from closing. This reduces the traffic by the extra open/close overhead in exchange for billable TCP Keepalive packets. Keep in mind this ALSO requires the PLC to be properly configured to NOT close the idle sockets. By default, my SLC5/05 seems to close the idle connections in a few minutes.

The two time columns "15 min (Cls)" and "1 hr (Cls) assume the socket is closed after the a data polls, and the TCP socket and CSPv4 session must be reopened for teh next poll.

Discussion
Of course the standard costs of using TCP/IP verse UDP/IP apply:

TCP/IP uses larger headers, ranging from 40 to 52 bytes per packet as compared to UDP/IP's smaller 28 byte of header.
TCP/IP involves the TCP Acknowledgments, which may result in separate, billable 40 to 52 byte packets moving frequently without any meaningful field data.
TCP/IP may require reopening a socket, costing 120 to 250 bytes per open, plus closing costing from 160 to 400 bytes. Exact sizes are hard to predict since both opening and closing of sockets tend to be "pushed" and result in excess retransmissions and retries when high network latency is true.
TCP/IP over unknown 3rd party wide-area-network infrastructure requires at least 1 TCP packet to move every 4 minutes 45 seconds to maintain health. This means either a data packet or a TCP Keepalive with data.

It should be clear to see why using UDP/IP over cellular (which is very reliable) is much cheaper than using TCP/IP. There are no socket open, close, acknowledgment, or keepalive costs. Plus field experience has shown that rapid IP retries rarely succeed. For example, a customer polling with UDP every 5 minutes with 3 explicit retries if no answer will likely have the original poll succeed or that poll and all 3 retries fail. Again, cellular is very reliable in that packets almost always make it through unless there is a network or congestion issues and then only time (a few minutes) solves the problem. So such customers have abandoned retries and just ignore 1 failed 5 minute poll and "retry" in 5 minutes.

CSPv4 issues include:

Rockwell PLC and software tools do NOT support use of UDP/IP - my tests with UDP/IP have to be conducted with the Digi One IAP which happily bridges CSPv4 between TCP and UDP (as well as to or from Ethernet/IP and DF1).
CSPv4 requires the exchange of a pair of 28-byte negotiation TCP packets when a new TCP socket is opened to inform the client (master) of a server (slave) assigned session handle. This nearly doubles the overhead of an open-poll-close socket paradigm.
The 28 byte CSPv4 header really contains little useful information; such excess bytes cost nothing tangible under Ethernet but cost cash in the form of requiring larger cell plans over cellar.

In conclusion, CSPv4 will be a rather poor choice for raw, periodic polling of remote AB PLC. ODVA Ethernet/IP (as implemented by all vendors) is even worse.

Your only effective solution at present is to carefully craft a set of MSG blocks to push data from the field in a report-by-exception paradigm. Of course you also must include safe guards within your PLC to prevent rapid, repeated MSG block triggers during system failure that could cost you thousands of dollar ($$$) in a few days.

DF1 Open Source for Visual Basic 2005

2007-04-16T09:11:00.000-07:00

Archie has started a SourceForge project for his AB DF1 code running under VB 2005. He has checked in a full first set of files (unlike many SourceForge projects which get created but NEVER have files :-\ )

http://sourceforge.net/projects/abdf1/

I haven't looked over his code yet, plus all I have is VB 2003 .NET.

Hopefully Microsoft has STOPPED the old VB issue that each new rev of VB is neither 100% forward nor backward compatible ... one always need to "tweak" a few lines to make the port work. I've used VB 1.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 and now VB 2003 and none of these have liked old code being pulled forward.

Cellular to Allen-Bradley SLC5/05 on TCP 2222

2007-04-09T12:05:00.000-07:00

The old CSPv4 protocol.

The Rockwell/AB SLC5/05 and PLC5E natively speak an older "unpublished" protocol named CSPv4, although most third party vendors call it either AB/Ethernet or AB/TCP. It moves only on TCP port 2222 - ODVA Ethernet/IP I/O Messaging is only on UDP port 2222, so they don't conflict. The protocol consists (normally) of a 3-part packet:

28-byte header
4 or 15-byte LSAP or end-point addressing packet
PCCC message which is basically what DF1 documents as an Application Packet

In general, the packets are fairly sparse and compressible (if you have the tools to do this). The characteristics of CSPv4 which impact cellular (and wide-area-network) support:

Rockwell tools and PLC only support use of TCP/IP and port 2222; this greatly limits use of CSPv4 in NAT'd networks since the remote NAT router can only forward TCP port 2222 to a single remote PLC.
CSPv4 includes a single TCP packet exchange to "register a session" or connect. If you are polling faster than the PLC will hang-up on you, then this is not important. However, if you poll slow enough that a new TCP/IP socket must be opened for each poll, then even ignoring the TCP socket open/close overhead this nearly doubles your traffic costs.
In tests, a SLC5/05 seems effective at including the TCP ACK response to the host within the CSPv4 data response packet, so you only have to pay for one empty TCP ACK, which is the host's acknowledgment to the PLC for the response.
TCP Keepalive could be an issue, since most hosts fail to issue it and the SLC5/05 I've tested against either doesn't issue TCP keepalives
or does it very frequently.

Interested in Cellular? Setup a DMZ Lab

2007-04-05T06:30:00.000-07:00

Summary: Last post I suggested people interested in cellular data start by learning how to use their home cable router. In this post I suggest the next step, of how to make your life easy at work once you're ready to start testing real cellular or satellite access by IP.

Your Second Step should be to set up a simple, isolated low-speed broadband link at work ... create your own DMZ lab.

Sigh - I waste so much time listening to customers complain about how difficult it is to get the IT department to give them custom firewall permissions. Since modern "Security" wisdom is to block everything until proven safe, I waste more time asking customers complaining that their Modbus/TCP or Rockwell access not working to first talk to their IT group to make sure they aren't blocking unknown binary traffic by default. I waste yet more time when customers struggle for days and finally have to formally get someone in IT to help study the corporate firewall logs to see if any traffic is getting through or not. An interesting epiphany occurs when I suggest they just look into paying roughly $50 per month for a private connection for this. It is surprisingly cheap to do this and makes a lot of people's jobs 200% easier.

So far the feedback from customers has been quite positive, with IT departments over-joyed at the idea (slight exaggeration :-] lessor-of-two-evils may be a better term). This really makes sense; IT is charged with keeping the corporate system working and secure, so when you ask for yet another odd, unknown firewall hole to be opened, you ask them to risk their jobs. Plus trying to keep custom firewall settings updated for 50 different projects is an ongoing headache and ongoing risk for mistakes. I know that Digi's IT group is very satisfied with their policy of not offering custom firewall rules on the corporate LAN but instead helping teams set up such private connections in a safe, isolated manner.

Simple DMZ Lab Design
The simplest lab design is little more than a copy of what you have at home: a computer or two, an 8 or 24-port Ethernet switch, and a simple NAT router to "share" the internet connection with a dozen devices. This allows you to freely set up a few OPC servers and Master PLC to test access to remote cellular and other wide-area-network based systems.

Locate an empty office or lab room for your new network. Perhaps your IT people should pull out or disable the corporate Ethernet in this room. You are going to create a small "DMZ"; a small isolated network that has limited security consequences if you goof up and let a hacker inside. You'll want good security tool installed on your Windows and Linux computer used in here.
Arrange for a low-speed business broadband link with one fixed IP address. 256Kbps is more than enough for general PLC/SCADA testing and should cost in the range of $35 to $50 per month. Yes, just $35-50 per month! I had one customer forced to pay his IT department $100 per month to open one TCP/IP hole in the corporate firewall!! Gee, he could install 2 DSL links for that. Now, be patent when you talk to your carrier, as they are geared to sell the expensive primary access lines used for all corporate traffic including servers. Keep stressing that you want a low-speed secondary line for use with some network testing and eventually you'll locate the low-cost plans you want.
Set up a DNS name for your DMZ lab. Online dynamic DNS providers support user-selected DNS names for static IP addresses. I use dyndns.org for both my dynamic and static IP but there are many out there. You won't need any form of DDNS update client since your IP never changes and you must enter the name manually anyway.
Unless you plan to implement large VPN systems, just buy a nice consumer-grade DSL/Cable Router ... the same kind you use at home is fine. If you plan to set up a serious VPN infra-structure, then you'll just need to bite-the-bullet (& suffer the learning curve) of buying a commercial IT-grade router with VPN server capability built in. Be warned that while many consumer-grade routers mention "VPN Support", they are in fact sub-optimized and documented only for home-office users who connect into a corporate Windows or Cisco VPN server. Normal human beings will find them nearly impossible to set up for anything else!
Do you want more than one public IP address? You need to pay a monthly surcharge which varies greatly per carrier, but could be in the range of $25 per month for 8 IP addresses instead of just 1. Plus you will need a larger IT-grade router since the consumer-grade routers won't support more than 1 public IP address. Most users won't need more than 1 IP address. However, having more than one IP address is helpful if more than 1 team shares the lab; this prevents them from trying to setup conflicting router configurations. Also, a few extra IP are helpful if you want to place a PLC "online" for your customers or sales force to access during customer-site demonstrations in the field.
If you need to access your corporate network from your DMZ lab, then you need to arrange some rules with your IT people. Perhaps the rule is using a notebook computer with 802.11 wireless to the corporate network is Ok as long as the notebook is NEVER connected to the lab's Ethernet. Remember, since your lab has it's own public IP address you can even use FTP or a VPN client to connect "legally" out your corporate network and back into your lab via the Internet.

Fancier DMZ Lab Design
Since Digi is basically a "communication company", the lab I get to use is much fancier. It has 32 public IP addresses and even limited secure access from the corporate LAN. Of course I have to share this lab with other teams, so I'm not owner of 32 IP. As an example, here is how my lab is setup:

Digi's IT group maintains a Cisco PIX router (a mid-range $800 model) that manages the 32 public IP addresses. Actually, this is NOT a complication since this router does not by default firewall any traffic; it merely distributes raw traffic based on public IP to one of many to internal IP addresses in an organized manner. I was lucky enough to get in the lab early and to be assigned 2 of the 32 public IP addresses.
My first IP address receives 100% raw internet traffic at an internal static IP I selected; so an external IP such as 70.x.x.140 forwards to my internal IP of 192.168.20.159. Since the goal of the lab is to avoid burdening IT with TCP/UDP port forwarding chores, one could place a consumer-grade DSL/Cable router at this IP. Placing 2 routes in series is NOT a problem - do a net-trace of how you access www.google.com and you'll see a dozen or more routers in series. Instead of a pure hardware box I have a Ubuntu Linux machine running firewall and router tools at this IP. This is where I forward Modbus/TCP to one PLC and Rockwell Ethernet/IP to another PLC. I prefer the Linux box to the $39 hardware box because it gives me a richer view of traffic in and out, plus I can run an Ethernet sniffer such as WireShark to see a complete trace of the 2-way conversation taking place.
For my second IP address I had Digi IT setup the PIX router to just forward a simple, safe list of Modbus, Rockwell, Digi, and other industrial protocol TCP and UDP ports. I normally have a Digi One IAP (an industrial-protocol aware Ethernet-to-serial device) at this IP address, but I can safely swap in a Windows machine when a test requires use of Windows tools.

Just as your home router does, the main Digi IT-supplied PIX router does out-going NAT to the internet and internal DHCP address assignment. So our DMZ lab has its own internal subnet of 192.168.20.x addresses. Any device in the DMZ lab can access the Internet - with or without going through my Linux firewall/router. Of course the other teams in the lab don't go through my router, but direct to the PIX router.

Since i study cellular usage, I have have a Digi Connect WAN providing an Ethernet-based cellular router in the DMZ lab. So I really have 3 potential routers to use - while it takes a bit of IP experience to not get confused, this allows me to have devices configured to selectively treat any 1 of the 3 routers as "the default gateway/router".

For example, I can have a Master/Client device connect out to a cellular-based Slave/Server using a route such as Master => out PIX+DSL => in Cellular => Slave.
For example, I can have a Master/Client device connect via cellular to a DSL-based Slave/Server using a route such as Master => out Cellular => in DSL+PIX => in Linux-Box => Slave.
In both of this situations I can see BOTH ends of the conversation, which is a huge help in testing, timing, or troubleshooting new applications.

The bonus for having Digi's IT team involved is the PIX router also allows controlled, secure access into the DMZ lab from our corporate LAN. Technically, the PIX runs a set of rules similar to those used by the main corporate firewall out to the Internet and it just treats the 192.168.20.x subnet as a miniature internet. So I can sit at my desk and safely check on equipment running in the DMZ lab. Of course this is limited to equipment treating the PIX as the default router - if you understand IP routing you'll understand why, but at least it lets me log into my Ubuntu Linux router from desk.