Using two gateways for single deive

LoRaWAN LoRaWAN Discussions
21

no one would need 30 - or deploy that many gateways in range of a reasonably behaving device.

Perhaps I did not explain myself well. We have no intention of deploying such relevant number of gateways, but rather use the one already connected to TTN in the range of our device.
When performing tests at relevant altitude we noticed that rx_metadata object in the uplink packet displayed in console, displayed at very most 30 gateways (in 60 Km radius).
I believe those are just the first 30 gateways that received the message sent from our end node.
I’m sure more gateways have received the messages and forwarded it to TTN, and the data from those gateways (RSSI, SNR, Rx Time, and more) is useful for our research.
I was wondering simply if a paid plan could merely provide us with a full or broadened list, since likely those messages were already forwarded to TTN, simply the rest of the gateways that forwarded them would not show up in the list given a limit.

Please consider that you may be causing an impact on the other users around you and could potentially be impacting the normal running of the servers that we get free use of and must ensure we do not add to the already substantial costs that TTI cover.

This is understood, and we are not causing any of such: (again) not merely we are not deploying those gateways ourselves (they are already present), but the dutycycle we adopt is far less then 1%. It is our belief given how we limited our usage that no rational reason may exist for which this can ever be considered abusing the servers.
In this phase we are more interested in the data the gateways yield rather than forwarding our payload with some frequency.
Regardless, the servers already received the messages from each other gateway that could not make the 30-gateway limited list.
Wondered merely if a full list could be obtained with a paid plan, since those messages were already forwarded to TTN.

What are you trying to achieve with your research?

At the moment we cannot disclose what the research is about. Once concluded such relevant number of gateways will not be needed.

22

In a 10km radius there are more than 30 online gateways already

image
image1300×557 128 KB

In a 60km radius, you can count them.

image
image1282×567 134 KB

So how many gateways do you want in the list?

23

No one said you would deploy that many gateways. The point made was that as no one would normally deploy a density of gateways at that level, there is no need practical need for TTS to be able to list that many. Nor is there any apparent use to anyone managing a network.

You also missed the point about asking TTI or looking at the source code. Second time’s a charm.

Apart from inoculating anyone in general who has the next bit of research to do that may cause issues out of the box, you are causing more work across the network, backhaul traffic and the LNS still has to process those incoming uplinks - they may not be listed but they don’t just disappear in a puff of smoke. Do you absolutely know if this is OK for the community & more importantly, TTI?

Now that is a worrying statement. This activity is not that dissimilar to the use TTN for tracking High Altitude Balloons and that got a mixed reaction as well.

You appear to have removed the user names you have quoted, which is selective and non-attributable - something that is generally frowned upon in academic research. As for your answer, one wonders how public money is spent on such activities, and so I guess we will have to continue to wonder!

24

there is no need practical need for TTS to be able to list that many

That has been fairly understood, hence, given how relevant they are for our research, came the question of whether such limitation existed, which i will be inspecting in the source code, to answer your question. That was something i wished to avoid, in hope that some expert would provide me with such information without having to scour for it myself.

you are causing more work across the network, backhaul traffic and the LNS still has to process those incoming uplinks

The work caused by our device, given it’s duty cycle, the density of gateways present in the areas is far less problematic than the one of devices regularly deployed, and so the traffic it originates.
The sole element triggering such “work across the network” is the altitude it was placed at in the testing phase. Notice that this may merely seem a deliberate attempt to produce a large number of gateways, but it is indeed also a test of the conditions of its final deployment, likely at similar altitudes.
Either we test it in such conditions, or we just trash the research.
The most we can do is to reduce the duty cycle even further to 12 hours or a day, which is the only variable we can control (besides power) to reduce the stress of the network.

You appear to have removed the user names you have quoted, which is selective and non-attributable - something that is generally frowned upon in academic research.

No user names were removed, it is likely of my mistake.
Plus, given how irrelated the matter of how frowned upon it could be, I consider such as an ad-hominem.

As for your answer, one wonders how public money is spent on such activities, and so I guess we will have to continue to wonder!

Irrelated, see the answer to the quote above.

Returning to practical matters: to answer the moral concerns (e.g what the community feels), we cannot rely on speculation. I cannot rely on “may cause mixed reactions” or “do you absolutely know?”, to understand whether to progress with this as there will always be a person concerned (case in point, this topic), but I understand your concerns, and the need to make this right.
Steps have been taken to allow us to conduct the experiments reducing to the most the stress received by TTS, but given the solicitation I received to this point by you, given contact was in the works with TTN representatives in the matter of this project, we shall address both moral concerns (community and related) and practical concerns (gateway number, the existance of plans to increase such number) directly with them.

I’m willing to discuss the subject of the research in a private message with you @decartes, given your concerns.
I’m sure you will have valuable experience and insight to share, and possibly how we could further reduce stress on the servers, if any.

25

The Discourse forum software quote system automatically includes the user name. As they are clearly not present it has jumbled your reply to someone else in the mix. Telling you this is not an attack, it’s a statement of fact.

This forum is the TTN representatives - the community of users. I figure you meant TTI.

I’m always curious to know about research, many of us here like to know about new avenues of investigation. You can use forum search to find prior discussions of transmitting from high up that is heard by many gateways along with pretty regular comments regarding the long range nature of LoRa that can impact networks a considerable distance away.

Mostly I want TTN to stay safe so un-disclosed research involving transmissions that cover a wide area is always going to make for some nervousness. :person_shrugging: