All I'm going to say Svein, is go ahead and try living with this stuff. I have spent most of my career living with my creations through the entire life-cycle. The other Operators, Technicians, and Engineers know my phone numbers. If something breaks and they think I had something to do with it, I'll hear about it. I go on 24 hour call for one week every month and a half.
No, I don't hard-wire the ARP tables except in extreme cases. But I have done it to get around poor behavior in embedded devices.
Let me tell you a little story from over 25 years ago. I recall, as a young technician going to school at night, a consulting programmer who visited us to help commission our SCADA system (in the mid 1980s). He told us of the UCA effort and how it was going to unify the SCADA world. Everything would have objects and those objects would be standard, and it would all just drag and drop into a new nirvana of design and ease of maintenance. Well, we waited, breathlessly at first, and then curiously, and then we sort of forgot about it. Yes, they've been at it for a long time.
The IEC 61850 object model and the MMS/GOOSE transport has a major problem to overcome: The object definitions should match the devices in the field, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Yet, that's exactly what 61850 tries to do. And that's why, decades later, they're only just starting to see some meager traction. It works if you have a green-field, clean sheet design. But that's not what most users have. And if you try to mix GE, ABB, or Siemens gear, you'll be in for a rather unpleasant surprise. It's not as plug-and-play as it might first seem. I wish I could say something nicer about it because I would really like to have seen this work. But after decades of effort, they still don't have a lot to show for it --and I'm pretty sure that it's because they have firmly planted the cart in front of the horse. Designing hardware to meet a software goal is a non-starter in most engineering houses. Go try it some time and let me know how well it works.
If you'd like to see a sample of the problems the 61850 standard has faced, read the verbiage on the compliance certificate: "This device has not been shown to be incompatible with the standard." Doesn't that inspire confidence?
By the way, this same stumbling block is one of the reasons the FieldBus standard got stalled in committee for about 15 years.
Frankly, I'm tired of kids in cubicles who think a pump is an object. I'll slap a hard-hat on their heads, some steel toed boots on their feet, and drag them out to a pumping station and show them the subtle differences of each pump in the station. No, they're not easily summarized by objects. These things grow and morph, and change as the years go by. Unless you install and commission them all at the same time, these objects do not copy directly. They cannot be standard. A pump of brand X from 10 years ago is not the same as pump Y from two years ago, or pump Z from 50 years ago. That's the fallacy of trying to build standard objects.
Yes, I've used object models to handle identical devices in new installations. It saves some commissioning time there. But that's a far cry from the one true object model of everything.
I prefer simplicity. Keep It Simple, Stupid!
When you have to live with your creations in a 24/7 environment year after year, you too will understand.
