PLC NAT Suggestions.

[HoldenC]

I know this topic has been brought up a few times, but i had some specific questions.

I have installed several 1783-NATR devices and they have operated flawless. I have recently been recommended to use a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X. I have also installed several of Ubiquiti switches have been very happy with their performance.

I'm mainly looking at trialing the EdgeRouter X based on the lower cost. $1000 vs $50.

All I'm looking to to is do 1:1 NAT for adding a PLC to our machine network.

Can anyone offer any information on the differences they've experienced with the 2 ?

Thanks.

 

[mk42]

I use an edgerouter x for my house, works great. However, it's not an industrial device, no idea how it will hold up with a dirty environment, vibration, temp outliers, etc.

One the one hand, you can buy a LOT of spares for $1000. On the other hand, you would need to potentially deal with the downtime involved in a swap. You can save off the config of the device ahead of time (and HOPE nobody else has changed it after that), but it still would take time to notice there's a problem, find the spare, swap it in, configure, etc.

For a low priority system, or one where production doesn't actually rely on the network uplink, yeah, could work. If it's a clean, comfortable facility, might never notice the difference. If it's a system where network uplink is required for production (just in time orders coming from On High, etc), the $950 cost difference will be made up in lost profit the first time one fails (if that ever happens).

edit: edgerouter X actually has pretty respectable temp spec (-10C to 45C). a lot of non-industrial HW doesn't test that high, even if it can handle it.

 

[Jeev]

If I ignore the part of me that doesn't like seeing consumer products in industry, my comments would be:

-Get what's cheap AND available. That way if it fails, it won't cost much or take long to replace. Keep a spare if you can afford to.
-The biggest killer of consumer gear (any gear?) is heat and dust/residue. Keep it clean and keep it cool - It will last.

Personally, I like Ubiquiti as a brand and I think they have some nice products. We use their stuff at work, and have a lot of their AP's out in our workshop with no noticeable failures (Forklift dust/conductive mild/stainless dust/leaking roofs/Aussie summers). I have also seen items like the pfSense Netgate 1100 with a DIN rail mount last just fine out on site.

 

[HoldenC]

Thanks for the replies.

I think I will just buy another AB NATR. The PLC I'm planning on connecting to isn't required for production. It would just allow supervisors to monitor a machine form their office. However, I'm sure if the link was to fail, I would hear a lot of complaints. Might as well use the tool that is designed for this application.

Again, thanks for the replies.

 

[mk42]

Thanks for the replies.

I think I will just buy another AB NATR. The PLC I'm planning on connecting to isn't required for production. It would just allow supervisors to monitor a machine form their office. However, I'm sure if the link was to fail, I would hear a lot of complaints. Might as well use the tool that is designed for this application.

Again, thanks for the replies.

To me, it's one of those things where if it were MY money i might make a different choice, but if it's someone else's money, but i'm responsible for the fallout if things go wrong.... I'll probably spend their money and take the easy way out.

 

[Keystone]

I agree with mk42. We are using several of the 1783-NATR devices. I have not worked with the Ubiquiti but I have heard good about their company, I am not saying anything bad about there equipment.
But the reason I would use the 1783 is that another electrician with some IP experience and has experience on working with AB RSLinx and other AB web enabled ethernet devices have good chance of replacing a device that failed. Probably not the case with the Ubiquiti, we also have AB tech support at this facility which minimizes down time (yes I know, but nobody's tech support is perfect I have had above average success with them).

 

[Cheeseface]

I've used both the 1783-NATR and the Ubiquity Edge-X router. Neither is ideal.

1783 requires your devices have a gateway set because it lacks IP Masquerading. The Edge has this feature, but the device lacks in several areas: not DIN rail, barrel connector power supply, complex configuration software, etc.

My favorite NAT device is Pheonix Contact's MGuard FL 1000 series. Has simple config software, IP Masquerade, lower cost than 1783, typical physical characteristics for an industrial device.

ed: https://www.phoenixcontact.com/en-u...outer-for-the-din-rail-fl-mguard-1102-1153079