# Protocol character in response:Modbus to ABEthernet /PLC-5 Ser.C  Rev.J

**URL:** <https://forums.digi.com/t/protocol-character-in-response-modbus-to-abethernet-plc-5-ser-c-rev-j/7478>\
**Category:** Digi One IA/IAP\
**Created:** [April 25, 2009, 4:59pm UTC](https://forums.digi.com/t/protocol-character-in-response-modbus-to-abethernet-plc-5-ser-c-rev-j/7478 "2009-04-25T16:59:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paisengineer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3be4f8/32.png) [@paisengineer](https://forums.digi.com/u/paisengineer)\
**Post date:** [April 25, 2009, 4:59pm UTC](https://forums.digi.com/t/protocol-character-in-response-modbus-to-abethernet-plc-5-ser-c-rev-j/7478/1 "2009-04-25T16:59:40Z")

</div>

Modbus response for first N7 register places CSP header data (Value 0x42) into the response 2nd byte.  
Scanning PLC-5 register N7:2.  
Modbus scan register is 2.  
N7:2 value is x50 (decimal 80).  
N7:4 value is x20 (decimal 32).  
Response to Modbus poll: 01.03.00.02.00.01.25.CA.  
is: 01.03.02.50.42.04.75.

Response to poll:01.03.00.02.00.02.65.CB.  
is: 01.03.04.50.42.20.00.52.E7.

ia target is plc5.  
Should this be fixed in the ia table for the abethernet protocol or in the serial section?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lynnl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/22d042/32.png) [@lynnl](https://forums.digi.com/u/lynnl)\
**Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 2:02pm UTC](https://forums.digi.com/t/protocol-character-in-response-modbus-to-abethernet-plc-5-ser-c-rev-j/7478/2 "2009-04-27T14:02:07Z")

</div>

I don’t really understand the question?

Make sure you use the latest firmware, which is the G2. Digi doesn’t own a PLC5, so support for that command-set has always been (per the Readme file) limited to how a ControlLogix likes the PLC5 requests formed. However, for firmware G2 a large customer worked to confirm the PLC5 support. I forget the details, but there was some off-by-one issue fixed related to how the PLC5 response (which was a different form than how the CLgx replied) was parsed.
