And I think ... if you plug a OneNet network directly into a regular boat (Internet facing) LAN/WLAN network - it will be the Terminator of that network.
This is going to be great and they could use POE for the devices like we use in our business putting Control systems in homes. It makes so much sense. I’m excited about this system. Tho I’m sure larger yachts already use both as you have said in the past about large NMEA2000 in larger Yachts. Great stuff In general. For a fuse system for outside POE cameras we use a product that is an inline breaker Incase the camera is hit by lighting it won’t hurt the electrical system or switch. Tho this being my area I could go on for days. But I like how they are getting closer together. Would be great to have your boat/yacht talking with your home and vise versa. Great stuff for the future!!!
Thank you Jeff. Most of us don’t have OneNet yet, right. Is it possible to explore how update or integrate 183 with 2000? Or do we wait to skip 2000 and integrate OneNet?
Don't wait for OneNet. N2K will be here for a very long time to come, most low data devices will interconnect over N2K. OneNet will be for high bandwidth content.
If you are a programmer and want to do anything with NMEA Onenet you have to pay $2000 to be a NMEA member. I hope the open source community goes forward with other solutions. The NMEA association is behind the times.
Normally I'd agree with you, but the decisiion to use Ethernet as the physical layer and IPv6 as the logical, this is a HUGE step forward, and quite a future(ish) -proof one at that.
@@idahobackpacker there are companies out there that already do that by converting the 0183 and 2000 protocols into a common one and they use ipv6. The reason these projects are already out there is because of the developer fees NMEA charges. NMEA is just a shenanigan to keep the small players out of the industry.
@@esquire9445 Just thought it might be helpful to share that the NMEA is a 'not for profit' organisation that is reliant on the sale of its Standards so it can continue to exist and support the marine industry. Without the NMEA, all marine data would be proprietary.
@@andycampbell1419 I respectfully disagree, NMEA puts up barriers to small startups. There are open standards in other industries that don't cost money to develop to. The way a lot of us programmers view them is as an organization that is setup to protect the big players.
@@esquire9445 I know it's never been their intention to hinder startups, but I totally understand your frustration and to that end, in the past I've suggested an alternative income model that could help reduce that entry barrier. However changing an organisation's main income stream is difficult when options are very limited. The marine manufacturer's (both big and small) give their engineering time freely to the NMEA in order to help create new Standards (such as OneNet) and maintain existing ones. On that subject, this might be a good time to say that any company, regardless of their size, can take part in NMEA meetings to help advance their Standards and personally, I would like the NMEA to better understand this frustration in a constructive way. Those free open Standards you reference are potentially in far larger markets than the marine industry and are financially supported by huge manufacturers with billion dollar revenues based on those Standards - which is not something you'll see in the marine industry. There are also other Standards bodies, such as the IEC and ISO that charge you for every small part of their standards, every time you need an opdate.
Jeff, I have to ask: What's taking them so long? The technology is already there from the computer world. Protocols like TCP/IP lets me share all sorts of stuff over the internet. I'm certain this You Tube video wasn't made on the same platform as what I watched it on. On that note, I'm upgrading my electronics of my 32' sailboat up from paper charts, compass and Mark 1 Eyeball to the 21st century. So, do I go MNEA 2000 or wait until OneNet?
This sounds promising. I have a yacht of a ‘certain vintage’ that is NMEA 0183 and I’m looking to upgrade and it sounds like OneNet will be worth waiting a couple of years for it to go mainstream. That said, please tell me I don’t need to run Ethernet cable around my boat. Surely everything (other than power) can be run through WiFi these days??
The problem is if you put this "high bandwidth" stuff on your Regular WiFi you bog it down with that data. If you run separate access points for the OneNet stuff then you have to deal with channels on WiFi. 2.4 Ghz very very few channels. 5 Ghz WiFi more channels but still not that many in actuality. Wired Ethernet connections don't have that problem. As long as you are not also plugging your Regular Wired network into your OneNet network (without a router to keep them separated.)
hopefully the 20 year diversion into canbus is coming to an end. Manufacturers were already starting to come out with ethernet based systems in 2000 when n2k sidelined it. good to see it back.
CAN Bus is still unbeatable as a real-time network for status and control of critical systems. What OneNet offers is a co-ordinated network that can offer to convert NMEA 0183 sentences, share NMEA 2000 messages and in the near future transport high-bandwidth OneNet only messages. Add to that the use of IPv6 and built-in encryption layer puts it ahead of any other solution that I know of and the ability to seamlessly join multiple NMEA 2000 networks together that are distant from each other (e.g. engine room and bridge) promises to make it a powerful solution. But, perhaps I'm biased ;).
@@andycampbell1419 canbus is at best a "near real time" network that is super cheap to implement and can be done with basically a single chip, so long as you don't have to move much data, it's fine. Coming out of the automotive engineering world I can say that we would never use it for is "real time" events. managing spark or fuel or shift points, no. telling the speedometer how fast you're going, or telling the shocks which mode to be in, sure. and as a bonus you can cable it with all the other wires so it's cheap to build. Twisted pair ethernet today is substantially faster both in terms of raw speed and signal latency through switches and common chipsets, but it is expensive. Adding a 802 chipset will cost you $7-10 all in, whereas canbus is under a dollar. That's why there are so many chips and so many networks in cars, it's cheap and easy and you don't really need the speed or throughput.
@@PacificYachtSystems well if we can't kill off 0183 after 35 years, then the now 20 year old n2k has a lot of life left that's for sure, but as you point out, it will be the transport backbone for "everything" and I can see that happening much more quickly.
From a MARKETING perspective...doesn't this mean...you CAN now select the best MAnufacturer of EACH component rather than subscribing to a SINGLE mfg like Raymarine or Garmin or the others? Example: Forward Scan RADAR from Garmin talking to Raymarine.
Manufacturers making data available to others? Never happen. Each will interpret the standard to lock boaters into their brand. In fact it's already happening with Gamin and their Garmin Marine Network and Navico (Simrad, Lowrance and B&G), with Naviop. OneNET is way late to the party. And why oh why go to the complexity of IPv6. Surely no boat needs to have 340 trillion trillion trillion sensors.
Why *not* go with IPv6? Like all else CANbus based, devices need an address, and IPv4 requires way too much trickery to get it to "just work" in environments that have existing networks. Look at the IPv4 space violations used by Raymarine in their SealTalk HS. IP is IP, and Ethernet is Ethernet, yet it doesn't play well with existing networks.
I agree that 340 trillion would be too much. But... 254 IPv4 addresses are definitely too few. You just have to think a bit bigger. Every electrical device, every sensor and every display will have its own address in a few years.
@@Bernhard_V IPv4 has more than 254 addresses, it actually has 64k addresses (in the 192.168.x.x range), or more if you use tte 10.x.x.x or 172.x.x.x ranges. If you're using more than 254 devices, you should be subnetting them anyway.
@@Bernhard_V So goes the theory which has been around since 1998.and of course you can expand your subnet to greater than 255 addresses but I do see the advantages of IPv6 when you're mixing low and high bandwidth traffic on the same network. I guess I'll finally have to bother learning the dark arts.
