Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Alternative EPath segments support #63

Open
jkauffmann-manter opened this issue Jul 23, 2021 · 5 comments
Open

Alternative EPath segments support #63

jkauffmann-manter opened this issue Jul 23, 2021 · 5 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@jkauffmann-manter
Copy link

Recently I've been tasked to communicate with Omron NX PLCs using EthernetIP explicit messages. To access data on these devices, an EPath doesn't consist of a class id, instance id or attribute id. The segments making up the EPath should be one or more ANSI Extended Symbol Segments (with ascii data encoded), and optionally logical segments with logical type member id (not attribute id).

I've noticed EIPScanner doesn't support EPath's consisting of segments other than the logical segment and the aforementioned logical types (class, instance, attribute). Do you guys have any plans on supporting more segment types in the EPath?

@jadamroth
Copy link
Collaborator

Unfortunately, we currently don't have plans on supporting these segment types. I personally have never experienced or heard of these segments.

Check out the MessageRouter.cpp and MessageRouterRequest.cpp classes. That's where I presume you'll want to make these changes if you're using explicit messaging. If you're familiar with C++, it shouldn't take too long to figure out how it works.

May also be good to reference how/if other EIP repos in other languages operate this way:

  1. https://github.com/pjkundert/cpppo
  2. https://github.com/digitalpetri/ethernet-ip

Feel free to create a pull request if you make any progress

@jadamroth jadamroth added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 23, 2021
@nnarain
Copy link

nnarain commented Aug 3, 2023

Hi @jkauffmann-manter did you ever look into this further (assuming not)?

@JohannesKauffmann
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi, yes we did get around to it, but we haven't published this code as of yet. We hope to do this within the coming (two) months. It's still rough around the edges and still needs some work.

@nnarain
Copy link

nnarain commented Aug 7, 2023

Even if it's not PR ready and just something I could take a look at on your fork, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm on a fairly tight timeline. If that's not an option then no worries.

@JohannesKauffmann
Copy link
Collaborator

see #98

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants