pv plus 700 plus and CLX

Hi I get a fault on the PV on power up "CIP connection (0) open rejected (Error 1b1a42) on Route Controllogix in Slot 0 of the chassis at 192.168.34.62"
This is my first test project that I'm doing in my lab and I cant seem to get the pv to communicate with the controllogix.
Thanks

I'm using a 1756-ENET/B REV 2 to connect to the processor

Check the port configuration of your 1756-ENET is correctly set at 192.168.34.62, AND the subnet mask is same as that in the PV+, AND that the PV+ is set to a compatable IP address.

Example.....
ENET - 192.168.34.62
s/n - 255.255.255.0

PV+ - 192.168.34.xxx (not 62)
s/n - 255.255.255.0

I checked the settings on the pv and subnet mask is set to 0.0.0.0
Prior to this set up I did set the subnet to 225.225.225.0 but than i could not see the pv in Enterprice or in Linx.

The subnet of your pc and the subnet of the PV+ must be the same
If you are using 255.255.255.0 for your PC then change the PV+ subnet to 255.255.255.0

PC has a subnet mask of 225.225.225.0 1756-ENET and panel view have the same subnet mask as the pc.
I have changed the subnet mask of the PV from 0.0.0.0 to 225.225.225.0 and established communications between the pv and 1756-ENET.
The issue now is that in RsLinks I have the PV crossed out with a red X. If I change the subnet mask of the PV back to 0.0.0.0 then I can establish connection in Links but then I loose connection to 1756-ENET.

I shut down rslinks and configured the ethernet drives again. All the devices on the networks seem to be communicating.

Adam, are you sure your subnet mask is 225.225.225.0 - that is a most unusual mask !

Did you mean 255.255.255.0 ??

Good to know.

daba said:

Adam, are you sure your subnet mask is 225.225.225.0 - that is a most unusual mask !

Did you mean 255.255.255.0 ??

Click to expand...

Must be something the IT "Gods" don't want us to know!
I've seen it a few times though.
Not sure what is used for but then again if the IT people don't mess with me, I just don't say a word and get things done quickly.

Let us be 100% clear on this issue.

Your PV+ needs to communicate with your controller via the ENET card - so both must have the same subnet mask and compatable IP addresses, ie. they must be in the logical network (have the same NetID), and have different host addresses (HostID).

It's the Subnet Mask that determines which parts of the IP Address is the NetID, and which is the HostID.

Nothing good comes from looking at the numbers in decimal - convert everything to Binary.

192.168.34.62 = 11000000.10101000.00100010.00111110
255.255.255.0 = 11111111.11111111.11111111.00000000

Where the Submet Mask is a "1", it specifies the part of the IP address that is the Network Number (NetID), and where the subnet mask is a "0" it specifies the part of the IP address that is the node number within that subnet (HostID).

So in your case, all devices that need to communicate with each other, including your PC for programming and up/downloads, need to have IP addresses that begin with the NetID of 192.168.34.xx - and the devices must all have different HostID's.

bkottaras

It makes very little sense to use 225 = 11100001

It splits the available IP Addresses on the subnet into stupid groups of non-contiguous numbers.

Dare I suggest that where you have seen 225, it's just been a simple mistake ?

I agree with you.
Though, Ive seen the 225 used in a few places.
Don't ask me why.
Must be an IT type of "Absolute Power & Control" of sorts.

Dare I suggest that where you have seen 225, it's just been a simple mistake ?

Click to expand...

Daba Yes it does make little sense to use 255.... as the subnet mask. All though the ENET had this set up i didn't bother to change it, thats why i used it.
Anyways I got everything working fine as this is only some testing that i'm doing in my so called lab, I never use the same subnet mask again.
Thsnks for all you help.

I have googled 225.225.225.0 used as a subnet mask.

There does seem to be a lot of stuff, but in many cases people had just entered it wrongly (probably a bit of dyslexia).

I screen-grabbed such an occasion from a help forum - one of many similar occurrances on the net.

I still maintain that using 225's is such an odd mask pattern that it has to be a case of number-blindness - you have even responded wrongly in your last post - 255 is the norm, 225 is the odd-ball.

Refer to my previous post where I mapped out the numbers in binary. It is customary (but not mandatory) to use a series of contiguous "1"s from left to right to define the NetID part of the address.

examples
255 - 11111111
254 - 11111110
252 - 11111100
248 - 11111000
240 - 11110000
224 - 11100000 225 - 11100001
192 - 11000000
128 - 10000000
000 - 00000000

Doing so enables us mere humans to do the maths easier to determine if two IPs are on the same subnet.

The hardware is exceptionally good at it, as it simply AND's the two IP addresses with the subnet mask, and if the two results are the same, then they are on the same subnet, and the hosts with those IP addresses are allowed to communicate with each other.

IMHO - although technically using 225.225.225.0 is indeed valid (the hardware won't care about the odd-ball bit patterns), it does produce such weird combinations of allowable IP addresses on the subnet that it has to be a "number error"