Differences between DNP3 and IEC 60870

DNP3 and IEC60870 (T101) have numerous similarities at a practical level, and in
some specialized subtle elements. These emerge normally from the basic
undertaking that they give a method for accomplishing. They additionally were
created out of the same essential system and have a few likenesses in their
message outlines. It is most likely helpful, consequently, to start by recognizing
their basic elements. Common similarities of DNP3 and T101:
High security data transmission (higher in DNP3)
Polled and report-by-exception operation
Unsolicited messages (limited in T101)
Object based data definitions suitable for SCADA
Time synchronization
Time-stamped events
Freeze and clear counters
Select before operate control action
Data groups or classes
File download and upload
Difference
Addressing
T101 uses both link addresses and application addresses
This gives greater flexibility in routing messages
T101 has larger point address range, up to 3 bytes gives 16 777 216 addresses
DNP3 uses link addresses only, no application layer addresses
DNP3 link carries both source and destination addresses
T101 has more noteworthy adaptability in its tending to system both by including
information connection and application level locations, and through the utilization of
variable location lengths. The advantage of variable lengths is that they permit
funds on correspondences data transmission when just little quantities of locations
are needed.

Data link Communications

T101 uses unbalanced and balanced (limited to pointpoint only)
T101 does not support unsolicited messages on multidrop communications
DNP3 uses balanced communications only
Both DNP3 and IEC 60870-5-101 backing adjusted or peerpeer interchanges, then
again, IEC's adjusted correspondences are constrained to point-to-point
configurations. This can be a huge restriction if a circumstance obliging a multidrop
design is examined. A sample would be the place there are an expansive number of
outstations associated with a constrained data transfer capacity channel, for
example, a VHF radio connection. In such a case surveying for information may
require an unsuitable data transmission, and DNP's backing for multidrop adjusted
interchanges would be favorable position in actualizing a reporting by exemption
framework DNP3 uses balanced communications only.
Frame format
T101 uses FT1.2 frame; 8 bit checksum, length up to 255 byte
T101 frames are fixed and variable length
DNP3 uses FT3 frames; 16 bit CRC, length up to 255 byte
DNP3 uses variable length only
At the point when the settled length outline alternative is utilized under T101, a
short and straightforward message is made in correlation to DNP's message. This
decreases correspondences overheads significantly.
Data objects and application functions
Data objects:
T101 allows one type per message
T101 combines function and data types in type code
T101 data objects are oriented to substation communications
DNP3 allows multiple data objects in one message
DNP3 uses separate function codes
DNP3 has one function code per message, applies to all data objects in message

Application functions:
T101 allows only one control point per message
T101 uses single character application acknowledgment
DNP3 allows control over multiple points in one message
There are impressive contrasts in the middle of T101 and DNP3 in the application
capacities and the information items upheld. The division of capacities and
information protests in DNP3 gives maybe more prominent adaptability, additionally
includes more prominent multifaceted nature.
Security
T101 relies on data link confirm before clearing events
DNP3 requires application confirms before clearing events
Error checking is stronger in DNP3
Both have select before operate
Whilst it is the situation that DNP's slip discovery capacity is more grounded than for
T101, regardless of whether this is huge would rely on upon the bit lapse rate on the
correspondence lines and on the length of messages. Since T101 messages have a
tendency to be shorter than DNP3 messages, the general impact may be not
considerably distinctive.
Interoperability
T101 has no official certification procedures or authorities
There are companies who provide testing to T101
DNP3 has defined subset levels for IEDs
DNP3 has defined conformance test procedures
DNP3 has defined certification authorities in North America
The presence of testing methodology and authorities, combined with characterized
least usage levels are perceived as solid components of DNP3. In any case, whilst
DNP3 has set up an early lead around there, future advancements may limit this
distinction as utilization of the T101 standard advances.

Complexity
No separate application function codes
Data objects are simpler, no variations as in DNP3
Point addressing scheme is simpler than in DNP3
Can be configured to have fixed length frames
Can be configured to use unbalanced link layer transmissions
This simplifies communications as collisions are avoided
Uses single-byte ACK transmissions on data link layer
FT1.2 format is simpler (but gives less error protection)
No transport layer and only one data type per message simplifies parsing
It has been noticed that T101 can have all the more low-level perspectives that
oblige setup, which can expand troubles amid framework reconciliation.
Additionally, despite the fact that DNP3 is in various ways more mind boggling, not
the greater part of the components must be actualized. The base usage sub-sets for
DNP3 limit themselves to restricted quantities of capacities and tending to modes.
Support for protocol
IEC 60870-5-101 is overwhelming in Europe contrasted with DNP3, however is
limited to the electrical utility industry. DNP3 is in the meantime turning out to be
more perceived in Europe in the utility business. A case of this is the utilization of
IEEE Std 1379 'Suggested Practice for Data Communications Between Intelligent
Electronic Devices and Remote Terminal Units in a Substation'. This prescribed
practice perceives both DNP3 and T101 for utilization in this application. T101 and
DNP3 are utilized to comparative degrees in Asia, and DNP3 is predominant in
Australia. T101 is bolstered by various significant producers as for DNP3.
It is clear that both conventions have significant backing, however that this differs
with industry and geographic area.
Summary
Both IEC 60870-5-101 and DNP3 are open conventions that have been composed
particularly for the telecontrol applications. They have been produced to address
basic issues, have a typical purpose of inception, and have developed more than a

comparable time of time. Both have likewise been produced to address the issues of
the electrical utility industry, in spite of the fact that DNP3 has more information
sorts that are weighted to general SCADA use than for electrical utility utilization
especially.

Examination of the components of each has demonstrated each has contrasts that
may mean advantages in a few circumstances, and disadvantages in others. In
various ways IEC gives off an impression of being a less difficult convention,
however this won't fundamentally mean easier execution.

DNP's usage sub-set levels, characterized test systems and confirmation powers
together give a sound premise to guaranteeing interoperability of items from
distinctive makers.
The decision between IEC 60870-5-101 or DNP3 for an association will rely on upon
numerous components. In utilitarian terms both accomplish comparable results. For
the item designer, unmistakably the convention upheld will rely on upon the needs
of clients, which will be gotten from their industry and area. For some items backing
of both conventions will be the key.