L24ER-QBFC1B Ethernet options

diat150

Lifetime Supporting Member
Join Date
Mar 2006
Location
Louisiana
Posts
1,473
I have a QBFC1B that has a remote ethernet IO rack on a private network. I would like to bring this PLC on a different network but keep the remote IO rack on its own dedicated network.



It appears I am pretty limited with this processor. It doesnt appear that there is an additional ethernet card that can be installed. I guess my only option would be to use a router or gateway to nat out the IP of the processor to the new network I want to put the PLC on.



Is it possible to use the QBFC1B as remote IO and control both it and the remote IO rack with a controllogix chassis? Like that I would be able to install 2 ethernet cards and separate the networks like I desire.



Has anyone been faced with this challenge with the QBFC1B?
 
Isn't that what the second port on the unit is for?

Thats what I thought until I read the user manual earlier today...

• Two Ethernet ports - CompactLogix 5370 controllers have two Ethernet ports to connect to an EtherNet/IP network. The ports carry the same network traffic as part
of the embedded switch of the controller. However, the controller uses only one IP address.

Not sure but it looks from that they need to be the same network and its just for physical connection
 
The 1769-L24ER-xx controllers are part of the "CompactLogix 5370" family, on which the two Ethernet ports are an embedded switch with DLR ring capability.

They comprise only a single TCP/IP and CIP port object and can have only one IP address.

The newer 5069 controllers are the "CompactLogix 5380" family, and their two Ethernet ports can be configured either as a DLR ring, or as independent TCP/IP and CIP ports.

9300-ENA or the 1783-NATR are two good Rockwell solutions for keeping a CompactLogix machine control network separate from the enterprise network. There are other good remote-access/industrial router devices on the market too.
 
The 1769-L24ER-xx controllers are part of the "CompactLogix 5370" family, on which the two Ethernet ports are an embedded switch with DLR ring capability.

They comprise only a single TCP/IP and CIP port object and can have only one IP address.

The newer 5069 controllers are the "CompactLogix 5380" family, and their two Ethernet ports can be configured either as a DLR ring, or as independent TCP/IP and CIP ports.

I've been doing some testing with a 5069 controller and I'm learning that Rockwell's new platform (which the 5069 is part of) has some significant differences with what Ken mentioned being one of them however I had it backwards thinking that both the 5069's and 5370's would operate with two IP addresses.
On a side note, anyone that's going to be using the new Logix platform that has not had a chance to work with them yet keep in mind that there are differences that you will want to know about before you design your program.
 
I learned today that the compact is only using 1 di and the rest remote IO, so I may just swap to a 4 slot controllogix rack, processor, and 2 ethernet cards, and a DI.


I havent read of any huge issue with the NAT devices like with the NET ENI, but the customer feels more comfortable with that setup.


Glad to know about it because we may be able to use it in some other spots where the economics doesnt support upgrading.
 
I've been doing some testing with a 5069 controller and I'm learning that Rockwell's new platform (which the 5069 is part of) has some significant differences with what Ken mentioned being one of them however I had it backwards thinking that both the 5069's and 5370's would operate with two IP addresses.
On a side note, anyone that's going to be using the new Logix platform that has not had a chance to work with them yet keep in mind that there are differences that you will want to know about before you design your program.

I've done several projects with the 5069 and am commissioning the first using a 5069 guardlogix; nothing unusual other than mapping of 5069 io is not straight forward and 5069 safety io is not available yet. Can you share what you've learned? Maybe start a new thread.
 
I've done several projects with the 5069 and am commissioning the first using a 5069 guardlogix; nothing unusual other than mapping of 5069 io is not straight forward and 5069 safety io is not available yet. Can you share what you've learned? Maybe start a new thread.

The only other issue that I know of, and I don't know details (yet) is that the communications path structure is different. The I/O file structure is the other item that I had in mind and I think that's potentially a big one at least for some people who will be migrating to the new platform and are used to using single words to control multiple outputs and read multiple inputs. My PLC world is communications and I/O so maybe I'm seeing things a little skewed but I know that some of the more basic test routines that I've written in the past are in need of some new thinking. Having said that, I love a challenge so I'm looking forward to it.
 

Similar Topics

Whilst commissioning a system using a CompactLogix 1769-L24ER-QBFC1B we have accidentally shorted an output to ground causing the output to stop...
Replies
8
Views
2,575
Hi I'm newish to the PLC world and have a little test/learning rig put together at work. I have a micrologix 1100 and a 1769-L24ER-QBFC1B, I also...
Replies
1
Views
1,558
Hi All I am setting up some internal analog IO setup in the L24ER, I like all the options for the IO's but finds the input value info limited (or...
Replies
2
Views
1,545
i need some help with this configuration .1769 l24er qbfc1b I benn try configurated this counter for my encoder but i cant see nothing
Replies
1
Views
1,640
Hello, I have a prox switch switch plugged into my embedded counter in terminal A0+ and I'm trying to see which input I need to use to monitor...
Replies
2
Views
1,997
Back
Top Bottom