I'm new to DDD and I'm trying to decide how to access infrastructure hardware (network devices, specialized hardware, etc) information. Most of the devices I want to communicate with and control have a state. I'm representing the devices in the domain as objects but to replicate the state should it be through a repository or a service or some other component.
An example would be: If a customer buys a firewall the command AddFireWall would be executed and the vlan on a network device would be switch to a firewall and an IP and private IP would be placed on that firewall device. I'm representing the network devices and firewall devices as entity objects in my domain. The state of those objects/devices would be saved in the repository.
Generally speaking you domain models should be kept free from external dependencies like hardware and networks etc. There is a concept known as an Anti Corruption Layer that may be worth looking up. The idea is to build a bridge between systems like hardware and the domain. It's responsibility is to translate between the two systems. If hardware or network changes then all you need to adjust is the code in the ACL.
Other approaches could include generating event messages from the hardware. These messages can then be subscribed to be various parts of your system.
Related
TASK: I have a task: I need to understand with the help of static network analysis methods which model I am dealing with. I need to try to find out the firmware version, manufacturer, device type. I am interested in solving my problem within the framework of the most popular Internet of Things protocols: LoRaWAN, 6LoRaWAN, Zigbee, Z-Wave.
I found a study Detecting IoT Devices and How They Put Large Heterogeneous Networks at Security Risk that uses ping, nslookup and the web interface of the applications themselves. They had a whole huge network of real smart devices at their disposal. I do not have the opportunity to assemble my experimental stand from real devices. What should I do in this situation?
PROBLEM: How can I emulate the operation of devices, so that later I can communicate with them over the network as with real ones.
Using sockets(internet/Unix domain) is it possible to send/recieve data directly from userspace to network card and viceversa?
yes ... have a look at Open Onload technology. This is commonly used technology in situations where you want to have the lowest possible latency on IP network communication.
https://www.openonload.org/
Typically used in conjuction with SolarFlare network cards.
I’m creating an IOT device with some unusual needs when compared with typical home automation. I wanted to ask if anyone knew of a mesh protocol (Zigbee, Thread, BLE Mesh), that might be able to achieve this user experience:
When someone turns on their device, it looks to connect to a mesh network, comprised of other devices they have previously “friended”.
If no network is found, it creates its own mesh network, available for other “friended” devices to connect to, when those devices turn on.
If the device creates its own mesh network (as in behaviour above), but no one connects to it – and then the device finds a different network with more than one friend on it, the device should kill its own network in favour of connecting to the other.
I’m expecting that there will not be a “master” node who has “friended” every possible device that wants to join the network – I’d like the possibility for “friends” to bring their “friends”, to also join the network.
If a partition in the network occurs (this is very likely to occur in my use case), the network should automatically re-form when the devices are close to each other again.
All devices are expected to be identical in function, size, software – so BLE Mesh is probably not suitable given it needs a “Provisioner”?
Messages transferred will be bespoke to this application – ruling out Zigbee’s Application Layer?
Messages will be small in size, so data transfer speed is not a big concern.
I believe from what I’ve read that Thread is probably the most suitable for this use case – but wanted some other opinions to see what the best choice might be?
Seems to be a bit of a mine field to fully understand the ins and outs of all of these mesh protocols!
I believe Thread/OpenThread addresses all of the use case items you listed above.
I am still trying to understand DDS and its concepts.
I have a configuration where 2 laptops run dds based application. My environment does not permit multicast so I decided to go for peer to peer connection(unicast). To bring both the laptops in the same network, I connected them using ethernet cable (Not sure if it was necessary or not).
Now I did not change anything in the QoS i.e. i did not do any settings for unicasting. But now my applications are communicating with each other.
Question :
How are the participants being discovered ? Multicasting ? as I did not do any settings for unicasting.
Was it necessary to bring them under one network i.e. connect with ethernet cable if I wanted to use unicasting ?
EDIT :
Configuration is as follows :
First laptop : Windows OS : Native DDS based application : Publisher : Multicast not allowed.
Second Laptop : Linux : ROS2 based subscriber : Multicast no problem
Out of the box, DDS is required to support Multicast and Unicast Discovery. Anonymous connections are handled through multicast. If you know the IP address of the recipient, you can manually configure those addresses into the unicast discovery list (each vendor will have their own way to name/process this list).
"Multicast is not permitted on our network", in most cases, means that your IT department has turned off multicast packet forwarding at the switch (or the switches) that define the fabric that is your network.
The as-shipped, standard-compliant DDS configuration, however, has no knowledge of this local policy (how could it?). If you haven't changed the configuration in line with your local policies, the DDS Participants are still going to try to connect via Multicast, because you haven't turned it off.
If the DDS-using machines are connected to the same hub, or to an unmanaged switch (defined here as one that your IT department doesn't care about, or is misconfigured), and the network topology does not cross a managed switch, and they are using the default configuration, and they find each other, then they are using Multicast anonymous discovery.
Figure out how to configure your DDS implementation, to add the unicast ip addresses of the machines that need to communicate. Because discovery is usually only needed in one direction (if A discovers B, then it is true that B has discovered A, assuming neither A nor B are configured to ignore the other[1]).
Once you have configured for unicast discovery, you can configure for no-multicast. If the machines are on IP hopping networks (WiFi, etc) it will be difficult unless the DDS implementation understands multipathing. Talk to the vendor to see if this is the case.
[1] DDS is nothing if not overly configurable.
How are the participants being discovered ? Multicasting ? as I did not do any settings for unicasting.
It is not possible for me to answer this question with complete certainty since you are using DDS as part of the ROS2 framework and I am not familiar with the exact details of how the two are set up to interact together. Having said that, from your description it does seem that the participants are indeed using multicast to discover each other.
The best way to get a conclusive answer is by sniffing the network -- assuming that you have the required privileges to do so. For example you can use Wireshark , which comes with an RTPS dissector that allows you to filter on RTPS messages. (RTPS is the name of the standardized DDS wire protocol.) Check out the destination address and see if you detect any addresses in the multicast range. You can do this while firing up a single DDS-based application. It will start announcing itself over the network immediately.
Was it necessary to bring them under one network i.e. connect with ethernet cable if I wanted to use unicasting ?
If you want to use unicasting, you will need to know IP addresses or host names of all peer nodes. As long as those peer nodes can reach each other over UDP, you are good to go. Often, but not always, ping will let you know whether this is the case. Firewalls are a typical cause of problems.
However, be aware that different types of network have their own specific properties that you might have to adjust your configuration to. Over WiFi for example, the likelihood of packets being dropped (especially with bursts of data) is much larger than when connecting nodes directly with a wire. DDS allows for tuning its protocol to deal with that.
We are planning to use Ethernet bus topology (wiki). The reason using this very old topology is hardware limitations and software requirements. Collisions should be OK, as bandwitdh requirement is very low.
My problem is, how can we test this topology with modern Ethernet controllers and software like Ubuntu etc. I could not find a good implementation example.
I have tried connecting three Intel Ethernet controllers (with Static IPs) together and only two of them had link at a time (they worked in point-to-point connection as usual)
"Modern" hardware is rather limited when trying to build a bus topology - it's much easier to build a more usual star/tree network. However, with the right key components you can even connect both topologies.
From the software point of view, the network just "works", i.e. as long as the network is configured correctly the software applications can (and should) be oblivious to the network layout.
With an assumed Ethernet network, the logical structure of each segment is a bus anyway: each device can just talk to any other device, regardless of where and how they are connected.