Comparison

The ChirpStack Gateway Mesh and the LoRa Alliance Relay Specification each have their own benefits. Depending the use-case one or the other might provide a better solution. To understand which solution might be better, this page highlights the main differences between the two.

Implementation

Gateway Mesh: Does not require changes to LoRaWAN end-devices. The Gateway Mesh protocol only needs to be implemented by the LoRa Gateway. Border Gateway to ChirpStack communication is the same as a regular LoRa Gateway communicating to ChirpStack.
Relay Specification: Requires implementation by the LoRaWAN Network Server and the LoRaWAN end-device. ChirpStack does implement the Relay Specification.

Security

Gateway Mesh: Can filter received data based on NetID and JoinEUI. Is not LoRaWAN end-device aware, and forwards all data passing the configured filters. The Mesh protocol uses signing key to protect against spoofing of Mesh payloads.
Relay Specification: Can filter received data based on JoinEUI + DevEUI. is LoRaWAN end-device aware and only forwards data for these Devices (trusted end-device list).

Capacity

Gateway Mesh: Relay Gateway limitations are defined by max. throughput of LoRa concentrator. Mesh communication can optionally use LoRaWAN 2.4 GHz to increase throughput.
Relay Sepcification: The trusted end-device list of the Relay device can store max. 16 end-devices. The Relay device uses the same band as the end-devices.

Mobility

Gateway Mesh: Relay Gateways within the Mesh are not end-device aware, devices can move freely without re-synchronizing between ChirpStack and the Relay Gateways.
Relay Specification: If an end-device moves from one Relay device to an other Relay, then ChirpStack must re-synchronize the trusted end-device list (removing the end-device from on list, adding it to the other).

Hardware

Gateway Mesh: Gateway Mesh functionality is a software layer on top of LoRa Gateway hardware.
Relay Specification: Relay devices are technically LoRaWAN end-devices.