Improve Clarity of Port Requirements and Node Communication in the System Platform Documentation

I am submitting this idea for a documentation enhancement regarding port usage across AVEVA System Platform nodes, based on common challenges in real-world projects.

The current documentation, including the “AVEVA™ System Platform Deployment 2023 R2” guide and the “AVEVA™ System Platform Installation Guide Version 2023 R2 SP1”, can be improved. It does not specify which node types require which ports to be open. Additionally, at least one important port appears to be missing.

Cases related to closed ports are a recurring issue for customers, system integrators, IT departments, and AVEVA Support Engineers. All would benefit from a more detailed overview of ports and node relationships that makes port configuration more obvious.

Specific Issues:

1. Ports 30000 & 30001 are labeled as “Local redundancy messaging (WinPlatform)” in the documentation. Based on this, it is reasonable to assume they are only needed between platforms/nodes that host redundant engines. However, AVEVA Support has confirmed that these ports must be open between all platforms. This is not clear in the documentation.

2. Port 50051 appears not to be in use anymore. In newer versions such as AVEVA System Platform 2023 R2 SP1 P01, port 59203 seems to be used instead (as seen in C:\Program Files\Common Files\ArchestrA\Licensing Framework\License API2\appsettings.json). This change seems to be undocumented.

3. IT departments may want to implement host-specific firewall rules to enhance security. This is currently difficult because the documentation does not specify which nodes (or component types) need to communicate on which ports.

Proposed Improvements:

I propose that future versions of the Installation Guide (and equivalent documentation) include:

1. A full, up-to-date list of required ports, including missing ones like 59203.

2. A node-to-node port matrix that clearly shows:

   • Which AVEVA System Platform components (e.g., IDE, GR, Historian, License Server, System Management Server, Sentinel System Monitor, AOS servers, OI servers, clients, ... ) require which ports

   • The direction of communication

I am confident that this would significantly improve clarity and reduce support cases related to port configuration.

Please consider voting for this idea if you agree. Thank you for considering this proposal.