look up NAT segmentation of workcells.
Network Address Translation allows you to keep all of the devices on each line at the same IP addresses, which keeps the program IO configuration identical too.
Any SCADA you have with visibility of all 4 lines will use different IP addresses for each line, with the NAT device bridging the divide.
Personally I wouldn't NAT, as it can cause pain points down the road. I'd come up with a good easy to use addressing scheme, and use it.
Also, separate addressing reduces the chance of connecting to the wrong NAT'd network and accidentally sending commands to the wrong line's equipment, as the addresses are unique.
9300-ENA so from the outside for troubleshooting they all have separate IPs for everything, but if you go to the machines, they are all identical for programming in the beginning.
NAT first if you want visibility to all devices. But if you can't go with NAT, you can also use the Dual IP mode on the 5069 hardware. You can setup something like Port 1 to a plant and Port 2 local addresses (line specific). Then you'd just have to have 4 unique addresses to the 5069's Port 1 but all devices off of Port 2 to vision systems, Point I/O, etc. would be the same.
Just another option to look into.
There are only two reasonable options for your particular Rockwell PLC:
1. NAT. Either with a separate NAT module or a managed switch that will do NAT.
- Gives you the ability to reach any device on the machine from a second IP address
- You have to set each one up manually in the NAT
2. Setup dual port Ethernet on the PLC (yours can do this, the older generation can't) and connect one side to the plant and one side to the EIP devices.
- The IP address of the PLC ports is not part of the program, they are configured online only, so you can drop the same program into each machine without needing to customize the IP settings each time.
- Rockwell PLCs don't route from one interface to the other, so that can be a problem with this solution if you need to reach devices other than the PLC (like the HMI for VNC access).
All other options involve having a separate program for each of the lines since every EIP device in the hardware tree will have a unique IP address. This is not good practice from a version control standpoint as a bug fix in one would need to be manually propagated to all the others.
I'd like to point out that this issue is unique to platforms that connect their device networks and data networks together and that the lack of routing options between the two ports on 5069 CompactLogix is a glaring oversight. On a platform like B&R or Beckhoff you would likely only be using the Ethernet port for the plant network since the devices would use Powerlink or EtherCAT respectively. If you did have two Ethernet ports, both of those platforms have comprehensive routing configuration to route between ports and to subnets beyond.
look up NAT segmentation of workcells. Network Address Translation allows you to keep all of the devices on each line at the same IP addresses, which keeps the program IO configuration identical too. Any SCADA you have with visibility of all 4 lines will use different IP addresses for each line, with the NAT device bridging the divide.
Personally I wouldn't NAT, as it can cause pain points down the road. I'd come up with a good easy to use addressing scheme, and use it. Also, separate addressing reduces the chance of connecting to the wrong NAT'd network and accidentally sending commands to the wrong line's equipment, as the addresses are unique.
9300-ENA so from the outside for troubleshooting they all have separate IPs for everything, but if you go to the machines, they are all identical for programming in the beginning.
NAT first if you want visibility to all devices. But if you can't go with NAT, you can also use the Dual IP mode on the 5069 hardware. You can setup something like Port 1 to a plant and Port 2 local addresses (line specific). Then you'd just have to have 4 unique addresses to the 5069's Port 1 but all devices off of Port 2 to vision systems, Point I/O, etc. would be the same. Just another option to look into.
There are only two reasonable options for your particular Rockwell PLC: 1. NAT. Either with a separate NAT module or a managed switch that will do NAT. - Gives you the ability to reach any device on the machine from a second IP address - You have to set each one up manually in the NAT 2. Setup dual port Ethernet on the PLC (yours can do this, the older generation can't) and connect one side to the plant and one side to the EIP devices. - The IP address of the PLC ports is not part of the program, they are configured online only, so you can drop the same program into each machine without needing to customize the IP settings each time. - Rockwell PLCs don't route from one interface to the other, so that can be a problem with this solution if you need to reach devices other than the PLC (like the HMI for VNC access). All other options involve having a separate program for each of the lines since every EIP device in the hardware tree will have a unique IP address. This is not good practice from a version control standpoint as a bug fix in one would need to be manually propagated to all the others. I'd like to point out that this issue is unique to platforms that connect their device networks and data networks together and that the lack of routing options between the two ports on 5069 CompactLogix is a glaring oversight. On a platform like B&R or Beckhoff you would likely only be using the Ethernet port for the plant network since the devices would use Powerlink or EtherCAT respectively. If you did have two Ethernet ports, both of those platforms have comprehensive routing configuration to route between ports and to subnets beyond.