We are currently using the LoRaMAC_node stack for LoRaWAN v1.0.3 in our project and are planning to upgrade it. Our target is to move to LoRaWAN 1.1, but we also consider using LoRaWAN v1.0.4. Is there a release of the LoRa Basics Modem from Semtech that supports LoRaWAN 1.1? Additionally, if we opt for LoRa Basics Modem with LoRaWAN v1.0.4, could you highlight the key differences or potential feature limitations compared to LoRaWAN 1.1? Understanding these differences is crucial for us to make a decision.
Thank you For responding so quickly. Actually we have gone through these docs. But we want to know which is more used in the market LoRaWAN 1.1 or LoRaWAN 1.0.4? and do LoRaBasicsModem stack from semtech supports LoRaWAN 1.1?
LoRaWAN 1.1 was a fork sometime around 1.0.2, and I would see it as being “another” version of LoRaWAN that is not necessarily newer (since 1.0 is still getting updated). It does address some limitations with LoRaWAN 1.0, which cannot be resolved without breaking changes made to it.
Here are some differences I noted, of which some of these are covered in the changelog between 1.0.2 and 1.1 (in the 1.1 specification):
Addition of a root key (AppKey became NwkKey, while the new AppKey is meant to be retained by the Join Server). This allows the network to send messages to the device, without having to reveal the application’s key to it. As with other best-practices, not transferring the secret unnecessarily
There are changes to the way MIC works etc, so that retransmissions can be differentiated from replay attacks.
The downlink frame counter (FCntDown) was split apart into NFCntDown and AFCntDown.
Addition of some MAC commands, to support workflows that 1.0 lacked, such as rejoining.
By design, it is intended to be backward-compatible with a 1.0 LNS, but using a 1.0-only LNS will not allow its new features to be used. Chirpstack supports both 1.0 and 1.1, so this is not an issue.
IMO, 1.0 devices are more common. But it may not necessarily be the right or even best choice. Perhaps you need to evaluate the available LoRaWAN 1.1 stacks, to know whether it’s worthwhile investing in the more advanced version.