Ethernet Z-wave controler

@Ropeguru afaik the homeseer devices are indeed RPi (hometroller ZE S2) or beefed up similar systems.

Basically it’s exactly what the OP is trying to avoid. FWIW, I’m trying to do the same.

For all on this thread the ask is a black box device z-wave controller that can be accessed by (WiFi or ethernet). One could call the homeseer controller one but it’s really just a packaged RPi with Z-wave.

IMO This is a VERY valid ask. As more and more IoT moves to be managed in the cloud there are two directions, where one is direct control from a cloud management system. This is what the OP is talking about where one could config openHab on a cloud vm and then serve up control from the cloud. The BENEFIT of having a TCPIP based controller would be the elimination of the RPi as a controller which like a link in a chain is another potential point of failure. We all should recognize that RPi and similar controllers are Consumer grade and as consequence are prone to failure/noise.

The other direction of the IoT industry is IoT Edge, Msft Azure recently release products licensing for that design. However the IoT edge use case presumes a NEED for compute (signal filtering, AI logic, etc) on site (edge) as opposed to doing everything in the cloud. A typical home config with z-wave is NOT a scenario where edge compute need is high.

my $.02

@Chris the Homeseer is basically a potential replacement for openHAB. You buy their hardware and oh yeah you get to buy their software HS3 too which will run HUNDREDS. IMO Stick with openHAB.

But… If you have a IP based ZWave controller, then it is still fundamentally the same thing. It is a small, low power computer (such as an RPi, or Pi-Zero) with an ethernet controller, running some sort of basic OS, and including a ZWave controller. You will still fundamentally have the same components. Maybe there are a few less components in such a system, but not so many I think.

As would be the same for an embedded system - as I explain above.

Sure, I understand that. My question about a binding was more a rhetorical question since my interpretation of the statement that was made is that the Pi with a dongle, and HomeSeer would be similar. Given this is an OH forum, I assumed that ultimately the user wanted to connect it to OH. If you use a Pi with a ZWave stick, you can easily run this with the ZWave binding over IP - if you use HomeSeer, you won’t be able to do this and you would require a new binding.

1 Like

Umm, but you wouldn’t be using z-wave end devices either in some mission critical system e.g. bank vault security.

FWIW, I do think folk often overlook designing in robustness because we often start out as “just playing”. When it gets to lighting you can’t turn on by hand, door locks, fire alarms etc. it should be taken into account though.

You don’t need a raspberry pi but some kind of hardware to do the job. I have a similar setup with 3 Z-Wave controllers for more than 1,5 years now. All my 3 Z-Wave controllers are NOT connected to the OH-Server via USB but by some kind of “USB over IP” solution. As my OH runs on Windows I cannot use the solution with the raspberry pi. Instead I use one Silex DS510 with an Aeotec Gen5 ZStick, one Silex DS520 with an Aeotec Gen5 ZStick and one SEH UTN-55 with an Aeotec Gen5 ZStick. This works great as long as your LAN/WLAN is working reliable (which is not so easy, I worked long to get it stable).


I had the same questions. I am a homeseer user and want to explore openhab, but I don’t want to buy a new Zwave adapter (and rebuild network) or put my radio in my garage with the rest of my gear.

The homeseer znet does not run a home automation controller of any kind, it is purely a Zwave radio with an ip based interface to pair with homeseer over IP.

It is similar to the iTach IP-to-IR/Relay/RS232 that provide a generic IP interface to whatever they connect to on the other side. I have an ip-to-rs232 connected to the management port of my security system, far away from my Zwave radio or home automation controller

I guess the general confusion and disbelief that such a product even existed answers the question on whether openhab supports it.

It would be great to extend a Zwave network purely over IP to allow for non-connected buildings, or vacation homes, or cloud based controllers to be possible without needing to home openhab directly with the Zwave radio


Also thinking it may be possible to direct virtual serial port with socat over TCP to an ethernet connected Zwave radio. Maybe I’ll play around if I find the time

But can this device also be used with other HA systems than homeseer? I always thought that the communication protocol between a Z-Wave Stick and a computer via USB is also a standardized one by Z-Wave alliance. I am not sure if communication via LAN is also standardized an global Z-Wave level with support for multi manufacturers.

I’m follwoing this thread out of sheer curiosity.

Mostly i’m struggling to see the benefit of a device that purely translates z-wave to ip.

To my knowledge - having more controllers in a z-wave networkcould help heaps with signal stability, responsiveness and would allow to either cover big distances or really many devices, and ALSO let you CHOOSE where to run your automation rules to spread the computing load and don’t leave you stranded in case of failure of “THE” main controller,maybe even plan redundancies!!! (!LUXURY!) etc.

The post by @chris in date 20 oct replying to @kentann

feels to me like the following example
All printers used to run on serial, then either serial or usb connection, and you needed a chapo print server to connect them at a distance or share them if you needed to, at home or in a small office. It was cumbersome.

one says: “Nowdays you have a wealth of convenient printers with wifi and lan connectivity built in.
the other: “Yes but i REALLY want a cheapo print server.

Really curious to see where this goes. There might be unexpected use cases and developments ahead, despite my prior convictions, :slight_smile:

PS- print servers don’t need to be cheap, but neither you need to run multiple z-wave controllers on raspberry pies. There are plenty mini pcs that could run a sata ssd and come well boxed with fcc and ce certificates etc, and really cheap UPS can keep SBC based systems+ routers running for ages…

The zwave controller need not be in the same place as the openHAB host box. It can be in a different building on a campus. Or in a different country, over VPN.

If you’re thinking about resilience, a remote zwave controller can be used in a primary/failover hosts situation.

But this is achievable also with multiple controllers, over vpn, with mutual checks between them, without exposing all the network heals etc that happen via z-wave (that you would otherwise need a Zniffer to catch) over either lan or vpn - instead transmitting just the relevant info… isn’t it?

This concept of using an off the shelf USB device server is great! For $80 (same price of an RPi + power + chassis + SD card) you’re operational quicker with better reliability. Love it.

How does one complete the link the Silex DSxxx on the Openhab side? With socat?

Actually there is a specific Silex Software (called SX Virtual Link, downloadable on their website) . However I am nut sure if they also provide support for linux ( I am running on Windows).

And perhabps one more comment from my side: I meanwhile changed my setup an do not use the Silex solution anymore but I indeed switched to Raspi and ser2net. The problem with the Silex software was that when the LAN/WLAN connection was lost for a short time the virtual COM Port on my OH machine disappeared and reappeared after a short time. But OH was not able to recover the connection and my Z-Wave network stopped unless I restarted the binding manually.
With ser2net on a Raspi as serial device server and com0com and hub4com as serial device client software on Windows it works more stable. The COM port is alwasy present even if the connection is lost for a short time. So as soon as it reconnects OH will continue to work. For these reasons I would recommend the ser2net solution with the Raspi.

I’ve been trying to accomplish this myself. I m going to try out ser2net, any advice before I begin?

I think it depends on which platform you are running OH. As I am running OH on Windows I can only give advice for that combination with com0com and hub4com as Software on the client side. If you are running on Linux I think the client software is called Socat but I never used it myself.

HI good afternoon! I’ve been fighting with OpenHAB 2 (2.5) and trying to put two z-wave controllers -and I am thrilled to hear you have a configuration with 3! Amazing! Are those individual z-wave networks? (masters of their own networks) - Can you use Habmin to add the controllers and the devices or do you need to add them manually? Sorry I have some many questions and your post gave me some hope after fighting with this issue for a very long time…

Yes, those are 3 individual Z-Wave networks with own master only integrated via OH. So it is not possible to have Z-Wave associations directly between the devices of the different networks, but you can integrate them via OH, e.g. by rules.

Yes, you can use Habmin or PaperUI to integrate the controllers and also new devices. For controllers you have to add them manually and specify the COM Port of course.
However, there is one point to consider: When you start a network search for new Z-Wave devices then Habmin (or PaperUI) will trigger the inclusion mode for all 3 networks simulaneously. So you have to make sure yourself to include the new device in the correct network (e.g. by positionning it very close to the intended master controller). Otherwise it can happen that one of the other controllers picks it up first.

The architecture of the OH Z-Wave binding explicitely supports multiple controllers and it works very smoothly in daily operation.

However, if I had to start my smart home project again (my installation is from 2015/2016) , I am not sure if I would still consider Z-Wave as the technology to go. For most wired devices (e.g. swiches, dimmers, raffstores) the Shelly devices are meanwhiloe the much better choice from my perspective. They just work over WIFI which is much more easy to extend (no need for different master networks and all the stuff) , are just as small as the Z-Wave devices, support open standards (like MQTT), support easy configuration and over-the-air firmware updates via WebUI (which is not true for Z-Wave devices). And the best: They cost about only 40% compared to similar Z-Wave devices.
So I slowly started to replace my Z-Wave devices with Shellys, everytime I have to replace a device I do not buy a new Z-Wave device but install a Shelly device for it.

Another alternative is go to silicon labs and download Z/IP. The latest version works reasonably well but however you approach this it is more hardware and more integration.

Z/IP gives you S2 security also known as some security as opposed S0 or better known as not a lot of security so if security is important another reasons you would like this. Also a few other things.

The Web API is simple enough and well documented.

I did start wrapping the web portal API to make a binding but @Bruce_Osborne pointed out just wrapping in MQTT would be more generic. That is an alternative as the openHAB end is a fiddle in comparison and the solution would be more portable.

Interesting. But how would an architecture with Z/IP look like? What is exactly the intention behind it?

Z/IP is (or was?) a middleware layer. Sigma started pushing this as the solution to problems surrounding documentation, and the release of information to the public. It provides an interface between IP and the serial API that dongles use.

Now that everything is being opened up in ZWave (possibly late this year or into next year) this requirement will disappear and I suspect that Z/IP may be obsoleted (although I’m not 100% sure about that at the moment as Silabs are still discussing their strategy.

Note that Z/IP will not work with the binding - it would require pretty much a new binding. When Z/IP was the only way forward for certification, I did look at this, but it’s not an insignificant amount of work as it conceptually works differently to the current binding.

The other downside about Z/IP from a Java / OH perspective is that it requires a separate server to be run which can’t be included in the binding, and is obviously host dependant, so it causes issues with OH portability.

1 Like