Lol, mine was Raider or "the unit 725". Early 90's too. I was at PR in that time and on CB I talked with people from Maine!
But all those "repair starting" or "repair is done" were together? Or you just put them like that? I don't know if in the latest firmware something was changed but I never seen a battery device in a repair. I will run a repair now because your fault....
So, if these are the only zwave repeaters on the system and other battery powered zwave devices are not found in the system what does that say?
no, I took the live logs and sliced it to understand what was occurring. I sliced off all the text to the left of what you see then sorted it to allow me to "count" how many of each step started and completed.
Therefore, I know that 29 started and 18 finished. 11 battery devices.. statistics like that. 
(Whatever the real numbers were.. )
It really doesn't say anything conclusive, only that the Monoprice/Zooz (same thing) sensors may not like to use them as repeaters. But that's all it really says.
You mention that they don't work after moving them away from the hub. But have you run a Z-Wave repair, after moving them to their final location? A Z-Wave repair basically walks the entire network, asking every routing capable device for a list of all nodes within range which gets returned to the hub to build the routing table. With the exception of Z-Wave plus devices that support explorer frames, most Z-Wave devices cannot simply be moved around without doing a repair afterward.
That said, another possibility exists in that there is something in the firmware of those Zooz devices that causes them to not route through repeaters in the Iris plugs. We know that the Iris plugs repeat Z-Wave just fine as they have been the cornerstone of the Iris system for 4 years. The Zooz devices were never approved by Lowes, so one cannot discount the possibility that these devices do not play well with the Iris repeaters.
Yes I did a z-wave repair after they were in place, more times than I'd like to remember at this point.
The only z-wave devices I've found that are repeating in this basic setup are these devices made by Intertek for Monoprice and Zooz. They are found at pairing as Zooz Power Switches. Unfortunately they don't always report their accurate state even though they are z-wave plus.
I've tried using one of the new Zooz Zen25 double plugs as a repeater and it does not repeat.
It would be nice to rule the new C5 hub out as part of the issue since it is a different z-wave radio setup.
Could you confirm the node numbers with the list under settings>z wave? I did the repair and no battery devices were showed on the repair logs, only the powered. What device is node 24?
024 (18) 100 258 in: 0x5E, 0x86, 0x72, 0x59, 0x85, 0x73, 0x71, 0x84, 0x80, 0x30, 0x31, 0x70, 0x7A, 0x5A, out: MultiSensor6C 2019-02-12 3:00:36 PM PST 2019-02-12 3:01:31 PM PST
025 (19) 100 258 in: 0x5E, 0x86, 0x72, 0x5B, 0x85, 0x73, 0x71, 0x84, 0x82, 0x30, 0x31, 0x70, 0x7A, 0x5A, out: MultiSensor6D 2019-02-12 3:01:00 PM PST 2019-02-12 3:01:26 PM PST
11 of my 12 Aeon Multisensor 6's are Battery powered at this time.
I see, apparently is some devices only, like the aeon multi 6, I used the z wave tool and confirmed no battery devices were repaired here.
Great to hear.
word on the street is you have a secret prerelease version of HE, with some extra zigbee magic baked in.
I'm anxiously waiting my my red exclamation point to show up
That would be correct. 
@srwhite, what are these warnings coming from DH you created for the Iris side of the 3210-L smart plugs?
That’s a good question. What version of hub software are you on? There have been change to the Zigbee code which exposes more data to catchall.
I’ll have a look into that. Looks like profile 0x0 which means they probably are Zigbee protocol related...
On the latest version of hub software. I've experienced these warnings since I first began using the DH.
Has anyone gotten smart locks to pair when using 3210-L's as Z-Wave repeaters? Specifically, I have an August Pro.
I read that in order for the lock to be seen by Network Wide Inclusion, that the repeaters, my 3210-Ls in this case, have to be connected using "Secure Join" for "All Secure Z-Wave", is this true?
Also what is the best method for including it, should it be in it's final location, or can I pair it close to the hub, and then go to the final location and then just repair Z-Wave?
Not True.
The repeater isn't decoding the packet. It's just passing it along so technically it doesn't detect it's encrypted. Packet in... packet out.
I think one should ALWAYS begin with a pair in-place. Moving the two close together should be a last resort. Indeed some devices DO want a whisper distance, and Locks are one category of devices that implemented that early on.
What are the disadvantages of having that Secure Join setting be All Secure Z-Wave versus just the locks and garage doors?
Performance.
S0 is triple the packets. S2 is what we all want... some future day.
So when it comes to that setting, what which options results in better performance?
That
"Barrier Devices" -- like Locks and Garage Door Openers, Gate Openers, are all in the Barrier class of devices and they are forbidden in the spec from doing anything without a secure Include.
What then do you think the issue is with including my August on my system, there is a 3210-L repeater within 10 feet of it. Should I pair it closer to the hub and then move it and then repair the z-wave? Is there anything like the zigbee routing table that would allow me to visualize my z-wave network?
Download the Hubitat app
