2 QS systems talking to each other

We are working on a large estate with various different properties within the grounds. Each guest house has/will have a Lutron QS system, as does the main house. These are separate systems with their own processors etc.

Very little interaction is needed between the properties (there is some Crestron stuff talking across the entire estate). However, I need to have a keypad in one of the guest houses control some exterior lighting that is part of the main house system.

Just checking there is not an easier way to have one QS system talk to another than creating a '3rd party' device in each system (with the IP address of the destination processor and a random port number) and then send a command from the guest house processor ("TURNONLIGHTS") and have the main house processor react to that. Both houses are part of the same network (though on separate VLANs, so there would have to be a hole punched for the relevant port number).

Anyone done this and has it been stable? I can't see why it shouldn't work?

Obviously, I have Crestron available if needed, but I really want to keep this between the 2 Lutron systems ideally.

I assume your trying to keep these as 3 separate data bases as far as Homeworks. Obviously the simple way is to make them all one system but I think your not interested in that. I would think you could achieve this without a security hole with some routing. You could get a device that sends ascii over ip on each processor Homeworks QS can send and receive ascii easily and its very simple on the lutron end to define what you want commands to do. With the proper routing across Vlans there should be no security hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcignarella

I assume your trying to keep these as 3 separate data bases as far as Homeworks. Obviously the simple way is to make them all one system but I think your not interested in that. I would think you could achieve this without a security hole with some routing. You could get a device that sends ascii over ip on each processor Homeworks QS can send and receive ascii easily and its very simple on the lutron end to define what you want commands to do. With the proper routing across Vlans there should be no security hole.

---

Scrap all that why couldn't you get routing set up across vlan just add third party controller to each homeworks processor and let them just talk via third party controller in the qs software. That would keep the data base separate and allow communication without any additional hardware. I think lutron could tell you if this will work but I think it might be the solution. Then each processor is setup with the limited commands you need.

Yes, I am trying to keep the properties separate in terms of Lutron databases, primarily as there's not a lot of need for interaction between most of the guest/other houses and the main house in terms of lighting control (and the database will start to become a little unwieldy as the other parts of the property come online). It's just this small amount of control over some exterior circuits that will be needed.

I can not see why a '3rd party' device added to each system with a simple command being sent to the main house system would not work, I just want to see if anyone had real world experience of it as it's really the first time I have worked on an estate like this with multiple properties. Security is obviously a concern, but within reason, the network managers are happy with small holes between VLANs for control etc. to flow.

As for using 3rd party command sets I can tell you from experience it works well and is stable. Ive never had to go from processor to processor that way but have had a lot of jobs where I've used it to talk to other devices. Some of it was Crestron but a lot was just all kinds of integration devices either speaking directly to the device over ip or installing ethernet to RS232 both ways its always been solid for me with no issues. As for network security with the right IT person I'm not sure that Vlan to Vlan being ip specific/port specific routing is a hole. Vlans a lot of times are used to manage traffic more then security and with out knowing there network configuration there are probably a lot more holes detrimental to security then VLan to Vlan behind the firewall

Here is an interesting read on how to understand Vlans and there vulnerabilty

https://www.redscan.com/ten-top-thre...vlan-security/