You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Background
I have a Mictrack MT710 tracker. It is compatible with Traccar using the tlt2h protocol on TCP port 5030. The tracker can communicate using either TCP or UDP.
Problem
Traccar only supports this device (and the tlt2h protocol more broadly) using TCP, not UDP.
Due to the overhead involved with the TCP handshake, payload exchange, and connection teardown, transmitting a small quantity of data (like that from a GPS tracker) using TCP uses roughly 2x the billable data to send the same amount of payload data compared to using UDP.
Requested Feature
Implement support for UDP for this protocol/device.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Continuing to use TCP is possible, but results in higher data usage.
Additional context
I am happy to pay a financial bounty for this feature, amount TBD.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The English in the manuals is generally ok, but some parts can be somewhat unclear. I have been reading through them in detail for several days and am happy to help disambiguate them as best I can if needed.
heypete
changed the title
Add UDP support for tlt2h protocol (e.g. Mictrack MT710
Add UDP support for tlt2h protocol (e.g. Mictrack MT710)
Apr 25, 2024
Background
I have a Mictrack MT710 tracker. It is compatible with Traccar using the tlt2h protocol on TCP port 5030. The tracker can communicate using either TCP or UDP.
Problem
Traccar only supports this device (and the tlt2h protocol more broadly) using TCP, not UDP.
Due to the overhead involved with the TCP handshake, payload exchange, and connection teardown, transmitting a small quantity of data (like that from a GPS tracker) using TCP uses roughly 2x the billable data to send the same amount of payload data compared to using UDP.
Requested Feature
Implement support for UDP for this protocol/device.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Continuing to use TCP is possible, but results in higher data usage.
Additional context
I am happy to pay a financial bounty for this feature, amount TBD.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: