LoRaWAN Device Repository

Main topic for the LoRaWAN Device Repository

This is about the new Device Repository that has been announced at The Things Conference 2021.

The LoRaWAN Device Repository contains information about LoRaWAN end devices. The Device Repository acts as key data source for device catalogs and onboarding devices on LoRaWAN networks.

The repository is a collaborative effort, driven by The Things Network community.

For more details see: LoRaWAN Device Repository (GitHub)

(This is a living article that will be updated later.)

I’m looking at creating some generic entries for compliant DIY devices using stacks like the MCCI LMiC or a SiP module from vendors like RAK, Murata or Microchip.

I can’t call the vendor “Generic” as TTI have a “Generic Node” as a product and whilst it could be called DIY I’m also thinking of small scale vendors (like wot I am, a few hundred a year) that could use the entries so that people can get a device setup quickly.

This will be particularly useful for test devices using ABP without all the palaver of entering all the frequencies to be used.

The only wrinkle I need to find out is the use of the Vendor Id that goes in to any generated QR code that someone may want to use, but if you are big enough to use QR codes, you can probably organise your own entries.

I’ve been considering the naming issue as well and the best ‘compromise’ I could think of is ‘TTN Community Nodes’.

1 Like

I would like to suggest “TTN Community” as vendor name instead, without ‘nodes’. Just like other vendors don’t have ‘nodes’ as postfix to their name.

Not appending ‘notes’ makes “TTN Community” usable as recognizable name for other purposes too.


Generic Node is a device from vendor The Things Industries.

From naming perspective I do not see any issue with creating a virtual vendor called Generic.

How about smaller scale manufacturers? Any suggestions for an umbrella name for them (other than Umbrella Corporation)

As a small scale manufacturer I added my company because I want branded devices where customers can easily find them. Putting them in an umbrella corporation potentially generates a huge list of devices where customers struggle to select the right one. It also reduces exposure of the manufacturers brand and potentially (if a device misbehaves due to issues in the stack) makes it harder to blame the right party.

My vote is to not create an umbrella corporation…

Nick, what would be the problem for you using HLM - Handy Little Modules or do you want to keep own LoRa stuff seperate from the biz stuff? Am seriously wondering what to do with my G-S3 & OWL stuff longer term if I ramp post Covid :wink:

Curious to know what @kersing’s vendor name is.

Beyond the vendor list filling up like topsy, I was just throwing ideas out there for comment / discussion.

As for splitting (https://youtu.be/xRvCwtLLV6I) I’m moving towards ‘descartes’ for code that’s “official” and ‘HeadBoffin’ for random bits, like Pro Mini + RFM95 (the definitive radio) + LMiC

Does anyone know how long it takes for a newly added device to the Device Repository on the Github to be available in the V3 Console so it can be used?

I have added a new device to the repo and it was accepted yesterday.

It already shows up in de Device Repository.

But is does not show up as an option in the V3 Console when I try to “Select the end device”.

2 Likes

Same issue here. Our Devices are visible in the Repository for a few days already (See here and here but in the v3 Console, when adding a device I can not select “mutelcor” as vendor. Is there a delay or is something missing?

No delay as such, the repro feeds in to the main lorawan-stack repro - so when that’s updated, it includes the updated repository. The milestones on that repro will give you an idea of when it’s going to be next updated.

2 Likes