MY_SIGNING_SIMPLE_PASSWD

[Anticimex]

@LuFi not that I know of. I use atmga328p myself and it works fine.
If you read the signing documentation, you'll see that there is a hw chip available for signing; the atsha204a. For encryption, there is the rfm69.

[LuFi]

Yes, i did read that documentation.

So for encryption you prefer the atsha204a (hardware encryption) in combination with the rfm69 (433/868/915) Mhz radio ?

Typically, the encryption should work via the NRF2401 (2.4 Ghz) module though?
And you have already used it?

I am always ready to look for the error first with me ;-)

P.S.:+1: Many thx for your Support

Regards

LuFi

[Anticimex]

@LuFi no, atsha204a is for signing. Nrf24 has no hw encryption support. Rfm69 has. I use nrf24 with software encryption for my tests. And if you use the simple password option, you get software based signing and software based encryption on all hw (except rfm69 based nodes).

[LuFi]

All right, thank you. I'll look what I do wrong.

[Anticimex]

@LuFi there is constant action on the development branch. It could be that something grew over a critical threshold for atmga328p based gateways with the simple signing option enabled. You could try to sift through log using git bisect if you have an older known good version. Signing and personalization has not been touched for some time. I have not tested any signing features since my last signing commit. You could start with 59337b19fe2280e3d375a5e70156c75379d18196

[LuFi]

You are fully right, i tested again with the Version from 7 of June.
And now i'am able to see messages on node and Gateway.
Also was it be possible to enable MY_DEBUG.

How i need to register the node now ?

Gateway:

0;255;3;0;9;0 MCO:BGN:INIT GW,CP=RNNGAS-X,VER=2.2.0-beta
0;255;3;0;9;32 TSM:INIT
0;255;3;0;9;34 TSF:WUR:MS=0
0;255;3;0;9;44 TSM:INIT:TSP OK
0;255;3;0;9;47 TSM:INIT:GW MODE
0;255;3;0;9;49 TSM:READY:ID=0,PAR=0,DIS=0
0;255;3;0;9;53 MCO:REG:NOT NEEDED
0;255;3;0;14;Gateway startup complete.
0;255;0;0;18;2.2.0-beta
0;255;3;0;9;57 MCO:BGN:STP
0;255;3;0;9;64 MCO:BGN:INIT OK,TSP=1
0;255;3;0;9;7947 TSF:MSG:READ,100-69-67,s=243,c=6,t=27,pt=5,l=25,sg=0:205739666
0;255;3;0;9;7954 !TSF:MSG:PVER,0=2
0;255;3;0;9;7958 TSF:MSG:READ,156-86-188,s=209,c=3,t=10,pt=2,l=19,sg=0:896
0;255;3;0;9;7964 !TSF:MSG:PVER,3=2
0;255;3;0;9;8240 TSF:MSG:READ,84-13-13,s=195,c=6,t=239,pt=0,l=24,sg=1:⸮⸮⸮⸮|x`
0;255;3;0;9;8247 !TSF:MSG:PVER,0=2
0;255;3;0;9;8251 TSF:MSG:READ,108-183-170,s=192,c=4,t=37,pt=3,l=15,sg=1:44342
0;255;3;0;9;8258 !TSF:MSG:PVER,1=2
0;255;3;0;9;24365 TSF:MSG:READ,68-108-243,s=208,c=0,t=182,pt=6,l=18,sg=1:0468A782773E75481B000000000000000000
0;255;3;0;9;24374 TSF:MSG:REL MSG
0;255;3;0;9;24378 !TSF:RTE:243 UNKNOWN
0;255;3;0;9;24430 !TSF:MSG:SEND,68-0-243-243,s=208,c=0,t=182,pt=6,l=18,sg=1,ft=0,st=NACK:0468A782773E75481B000000000000000000
0;255;3;0;9;24442 TSF:MSG:READ,12-221-80,s=37,c=1,t=70,pt=0,l=14,sg=1:⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮⸮
0;255;3;0;9;24450 !TSF:MSG:PVER,1=2
0;255;3;0;9;24677 TSF:MSG:READ,27-236-160,s=96,c=4,t=229,pt=4,l=25,sg=0:1384774534
0;255;3;0;9;24685 !TSF:MSG:PVER,3=2
0;255;3;0;9;24689 TSF:MSG:READ,242-199-50,s=75,c=5,t=246,pt=2,l=25,sg=0:421
0;255;3;0;9;24695 TSF:MSG:REL MSG
0;255;3;0;9;24699 !TSF:RTE:50 UNKNOWN
0;255;3;0;9;24752 !TSF:MSG:SEND,242-0-50-50,s=75,c=5,t=246,pt=2,l=31,sg=0,ft=0,st=NACK:421

Node:

0 MCO:BGN:INIT NODE,CP=RNONAS-X,VER=2.2.0-beta
34 TSM:INIT
36 TSF:WUR:MS=0
45 TSM:INIT:TSP OK
47 TSF:SID:OK,ID=102
49 TSM:FPAR
92 TSF:MSG:SEND,102-102-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:
489 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-102,s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0
495 TSF:MSG:FPAR OK,ID=0,D=1
2101 TSM:FPAR:OK
2101 TSM:ID
2103 TSM:ID:OK
2105 TSM:UPL
2109 TSF:MSG:SEND,102-102-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1
2119 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-102,s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1
2125 TSF:MSG:PONG RECV,HP=1
2129 TSM:UPL:OK
2131 TSM:READY:ID=102,PAR=0,DIS=1
2134 MCO:BGN:STP
6148 !MCO:SND:NODE NOT REG
6150 !MCO:SND:NODE NOT REG
6299 !MCO:SND:NODE NOT REG
6307 TSF:MSG:SEND,102-102-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:
6338 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-102,s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0:<NONCE>
6533 TSF:MSG:SEND,102-102-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=0,pt=1,l=1,sg=1,ft=0,st=OK:27
6541 !MCO:SND:NODE NOT REG
10547 !MCO:SND:NODE NOT REG
10549 !MCO:SND:NODE NOT REG
10553 MCO:BGN:INIT OK,TSP=1
10708 !MCO:SND:NODE NOT REG
14721 MCO:SLP:MS=1000,SMS=0,I1=0,M1=1,I2=255,M2=255
14727 TSF:TDI:TSL
14729 MCO:SLP:WUP=-1
14731 TSF:TRI:TSB
14733 !MCO:SND:NODE NOT REG
14737 MCO:SLP:MS=600000,SMS=1,I1=1,M1=1,I2=0,M2=1
14747 TSF:M⸮G:SEND,102-102-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=1,ft=0,st=OK:
14770 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-102,s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=1:<NONCE>
14968 TSF:MSG:SEND,102-102-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=32,pt=5,l=4,sg=1,ft=0,st=OK:500
15480 TSF:TDI:TSL

Regards

LuFi

[Anticimex]

@LuFi you get a lot of NACKs. Have you checked your radio power supply etc? Many threads on the forum about radio issues. It is not a signing issue.

[LuFi]

Both are PA Radios with Antenna, and on both i added an 47uf Capacitor.

What i do not understand is the Node not registerd Messge.

LuFi

[Anticimex]

@LuFi I am not an expert on those messages, I suggest you use the log parser on the homepage as I said earlier.
That said, I suspect they are there because your GW cannot get any messages through to the node, all SEND:s are NACKed. And it also looks like node and GW disasgree on protocol versions, at least that is what I think !TSF:MSG:PVER,1=2 means.

[LuFi]

Oh, yes. But this happens since i first updated the gateway while the node was sending Data based on latest dev Version.

After that i updated the Node.

[Anticimex]

@LuFi it is well known that sending full sized payloads (as you do when signing is enabled) puts a strain on the radio that nrf24 radios have trouble handling.
It could also be some bug on development branch present in the commit you use which has been fixed in a later commit. I also see that there are indications that your gw is configured as a repeater. I don't know if that has anything to do with it. I don't think it is supported to have a gw as a repeater. It at least makes no sense. But I could be wrong about that.
You could try the latest but without debugging and see if anything comes through that way, with and without signing.

[LuFi]

I used the default Gateway sample Code.
I will change this.

Many thx for Support !

Regards

LuFi

[Anticimex]

@LuFi you are welcome. Hope it works out.