Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

Please Note This forum exists for community support for the Mango product family and the Radix IoT Platform. Although Radix IoT employees participate in this forum from time to time, there is no guarantee of a response to anything posted here, nor can Radix IoT, LLC guarantee the accuracy of any information expressed or conveyed. Specific project questions from customers with active support contracts are asked to send requests to support@radixiot.com.

Radix IoT Website Mango 3 Documentation Website Mango 4 Documentation Website Mango 5 Documentation Website

Y

Topics created by YEJI

Y

No response from Remote Device

BACnet4J general discussion
• • • YEJI

4

0
Votes

4
Posts

1.7k
Views

P

Currently, yes, that would be one way to do it (although your withBroadcast arguments seem questionable). You would have to have multiple network interfaces or multiple addresses on an interface. Another way to do it would be to implement your own transport based on routing between the networks that you wished to bridge. It looks like Terry may have fixed a bug concerning reusing the IP address and port recently, so perhaps you can pull and see if that will help you do what you are trying, https://github.com/infiniteautomation/BACnet4J/commit/9cb0864ef25be802b0b2e84ebd7013018bfafac3

Broadcast addresses are all ones in the address bits on a subnet usually, unless there is some unique routing going on there. I.E. 192.168.255.255/16 or 192.168.1.255/24
Y

sending multiple devices.

BACnet4J general discussion
• • • YEJI

4

0
Votes

4
Posts

1.5k
Views

P

Hi YEJI,

I answered in your other thread, https://forum.infiniteautomation.com/topic/3942/no-response-from-remote-device

Adding more information to this thread to get a better chance of response (which you shouldn't attempt to insist upon) is fine, but there's no reason to bump it by adding more threads.