What a coincidence, I started developing the same a few weeks ago and running it flawlessly. I certainly will follow your progress. If I have the time I’m trying to move everything which is possible to ‘microservices’. At the end for me Homeassistant will only do the automation and UI part.
I like this, I hate the Xiaomi hub, although making it bark like a dog creates amusement with my own dogs. My real worry is that I am completely dependent on some company updating my firmware and NOT screwing the system.
I also wonder about range. I had to move my Xiaomi hub to another room to get range to my kitchen the other day. In terms of range is this hub better or worse than the Xiaomi hub?
Also if I wanted to make multiple homes, do I need all three hardware components (ie debugger, sniffer and cable) for each hub? Or is the debugger just needed to flash the sniffer?
As I understand it ZiGate works differently from zigbee2mqtt.
All the “intelligence” is on the ZiGate device, which exposes an API back to the home automation service (HA, Domoticz etc)
With zigbee2mqtt the intelligence is in the node.js software.
Also there is deconz (with dresden electronics raspbee/conbee) - again using a proprietary (more expensive) USB zigbee dongle
And HA ZHA, which supports a different (more expensive and harder to obtain) Zigbee dongle.
I think it is confusing that you have a conf file called configuration.yaml and so does home assistant. Maybe in your docs make it clear that your configuration.yaml relates to your software, and has nothing to do with home assistant’s configuration.yaml.
I’m currently working (slowly ) on wrapping @Koenkk docker images in a hass.io addon.
Im not moving that fast as I am waiting on the USB devices to ship from China, so cannot test anything yet…
I was planning to map the zigbee2mqtt configuration.yaml into a sub dir in the HA config dir called “zigbee2mqtt”.
So the full path would be //hassio_server/config/zigbee2mqtt/configuration.yaml
Setting up several instances would be counterproductive, as I assume that would mean having several Zigbee networks. Then you would lose the dynamic mesh configuration you have in a single network.
48 devices is a very low limit and will be a serious limitation. Which is a pity, because otherwise this seems like very nice addition to Hass.
As Robban wrote, Deconz has a limit of 200 devices - and that seems like a more realistic approach.
It seems that NWK_MAX_DEVICE_LIST needs to be increased in the CC2531 firmware to support more than X number of devices. We need some expert to optimize the CC2531 firmware as I don’t know how to do this.