Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zigbee vs. Matter over Thread:Understanding IoT Protocol Performance in Practice

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 104 posts

Re: Zigbee vs. Matter over Thread:Understanding IoT Protocol Performance in Practice

#61

Post by 8-prime »

XiS wrote: post #58

`establishing it as a more robust foundation for larger and more heterogeneous deployments.` Based on.... 6 devices? Quite honestly I would have been interested in measurements with more than only 6 devices. Maybe upto 50 or so,even better if they'd mixed different hardware nodes for a more realistic scenario

Absolutely. My setup which is about 1 month old already has 14 devices and I'm just getting started. Only having 6 devices really feels comically small for a study investigating the performance of communication protocols where device count can really make a differnce, as observed by even then changes from 1 to 6 devices.

Re: Zigbee vs. Matter over Thread:Understanding IoT Protocol Performance in Practice

#62

Post by 8-prime »

denkmoon wrote: post #51
richwater wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a situation in which your smarthome taking 30s to recover from a node failure is impacting your life? Seems like a distinction without a difference

Do you have any smarthome stuff? Standing around waiting 30 seconds for your light to come on would be moronic. A complete regression over the electric switch invented in 1884. I'd rip everything out right then and there. Your home should be reliable, smart or no.

Whilst I agree a smart home offers some benefits that your 1884 switch simply cannot match. And the cruicial point is that the 30 seconds are the worst case situation where something went wrong on the network. Its not the usual operational experience you'll get.

For me, having to wait 30 seconds once every blue moon is a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

Re: Zigbee vs. Matter over Thread:Understanding IoT Protocol Performance in Practice

#63

Post by NekkoDroid »

codeflo wrote: post #46
AlotOfReading wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly a strong argument if you need like 5 qualifications to demonstrate the issue. If the right node fails, if it happens right as you walk up, if it's raining, if your porch is uncovered, if your door doesn't have an immediate fallback... I'm sure someone will be affected because of the law of large numbers, but it seems like an unlikely scenario to base a purchasing decision on.

A light switch not working for 30 seconds, or a door not opening for 30 seconds, even if only sporadically, is a significant loss of life quality, no qualifiers needed.

> A light switch not working for 30 seconds, or a door not opening for 30 seconds

I dunno if its just me, but having a manual override for such important/basic stuff is kind of a must for me. As much as I enjoy smart home stuff, having anything critical only available via that is just stupid.

Re: Zigbee vs. Matter over Thread:Understanding IoT Protocol Performance in Practice

#64

Post by BrandoElFollito »

I have tons of devices and I wish everything was Wi-Fi.

Wi-Fi has its problems but at least it is easily measurable, debugable, ... Zigbee is a voodoo protocol: you initiate the pairing and hope for the best. And then you hope for the best to have it stay on.

Re: Zigbee vs. Matter over Thread:Understanding IoT Protocol Performance in Practice

#65

Post by AnonymousPlanet »

HerAnt wrote: post #59
tetris11 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's to stop Ikea from pushing an OTA and crippling your whole setup 2 years from now?

You don't need to update your devices, and they don't need to be connected to any cloud. That's the whole point of these local communication protocols, after all.

Sorry to pop your bubble, but the moment you add any IP connectivity it will be eventually used to mandate internet access. The devices you have now might not yet demand it, but you will have to replace them at some point or extend your setup in the future. We've seen this play out so many times now, it's baffling people still think this time will be different.

There's a saying: If you set up a trough, the pigs will come.

Re: Zigbee vs. Matter over Thread:Understanding IoT Protocol Performance in Practice

#66

Post by preisschild »

brianaker wrote: post #49
margalabargala wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're probably only comparing open protocols. If one doesn't care if their protocol is proprietary then sure one might consider zwave. But it's hardly "surprising" that it's left out.

The funny part is that people think that Zigbee and Matter are open :) All three of them have their shortcomings. Matter requires an unsecured IPv6 network to operate; I have my doubts about it having any longterm future.

> The funny part is that people think that Zigbee and Matter are open :)

How is Matter (APL2) over OpenThread (BSD-3-Clause) not "open"?

> Matter requires an unsecured IPv6 network to operate

How is this network "unsecured" exactly? Thread IS encrypted and authenticated.

Re: Zigbee vs. Matter over Thread:Understanding IoT Protocol Performance in Practice

#67

Post by preisschild »

vdfs wrote: post #2

These protocols add so much complications it makes wifi/tcp/ip a blaze They fix some problems but add more, you endup just like that xckd about protocols

Thats exactly what Matter over Thread solves. It just uses standard ipv6, udp, tcp.

WiFi is not designed for lots of low energy devices that can be repeaters.

Re: Zigbee vs. Matter over Thread:Understanding IoT Protocol Performance in Practice

#68

Post by close04 »

AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #65
HerAnt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to update your devices, and they don't need to be connected to any cloud. That's the whole point of these local communication protocols, after all.

Sorry to pop your bubble, but the moment you add any IP connectivity it will be eventually used to mandate internet access. The devices you have now might not yet demand it, but you will have to replace them at some point or extend your setup in the future. We've seen this play out so many times now, it's baffling people still think this time will be different. There's a saying: If you set up a trough, the pigs will…

For IPv6 networks you're in luck. The hubs are not proxies so the IPv6 enabled IoT device in an IPv6 network can still be blocked at firewall level from accessing the internet. Less that the separation Zigbee provides but better than nothing.

For IPv4 networks you're out of luck. The internal mesh traffic is still IPv6 to the hub and anything crossing into the IPv4 network is done through the hub's IP. No more blocking available unless it's a feature of the hub. I'm not aware of any hub having this kind of FW capability.

Re: Zigbee vs. Matter over Thread:Understanding IoT Protocol Performance in Practice

#69

Post by inigyou »

fragmede wrote: post #16
rob-olmos wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took their point to be about wifi being jammable

Yeah first thing burglars are gonna do is jam your wifi camera so you don't have any video of them. Run cat-5 and get a PoE camera.

I read this as sarcastic but it's a thing. Simplisafe, for example, is trivially jammed.

Re: Zigbee vs. Matter over Thread:Understanding IoT Protocol Performance in Practice

#70

Post by diffeomorphism »

denkmoon wrote: post #51
richwater wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a situation in which your smarthome taking 30s to recover from a node failure is impacting your life? Seems like a distinction without a difference

Do you have any smarthome stuff? Standing around waiting 30 seconds for your light to come on would be moronic. A complete regression over the electric switch invented in 1884. I'd rip everything out right then and there. Your home should be reliable, smart or no.

Buttons etc. have direct binding. So even if your hub goes up in flames those will just keep working.

The automated stuff like "starting at sunrise gradually adjust the lights" might be delayed by 30 seconds. Annoying but hardly rage inducing.

Post reply on HN