Sensebender Micro

alexsh1

Looks like it works now, but what's the deal with the initial failed signs? Look at http://pastebin.ca/3585005 (GW side) and http://pastebin.ca/3585014 (Sensor side. Not the same powerup). It starts by failing a lot, then after a while everything looks OK.

I have exactly the same problem with Ethernet GW (Mega + Ethernet shield) + Sensebender:

GW:

0;255;3;0;9;Starting gateway (RNNGAS, 2.0.0-beta)
0;255;3;0;9;Radio init successful.
IP: 0.0.0.0
0;255;3;0;9;Init complete, id=0, parent=0, distance=0
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: 86DEAE1DAF50D577A4E2262B33ABF9DEE05DD8FAF84F94F50900000000000000
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=fail:86DEAE1DAF50D577A4E2262B33ABF9DEE05DD8FAF84F94F509
0;255;3;0;9;Message is not signed, but it should have been!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: 5D009DC0245C411DABE519AB62E32B24333CA92BE1BA9EC1CBAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=fail:5D009DC0245C411DABE519AB62E32B24333CA92BE1BA9EC1CB
0;255;3;0;9;Message is not signed, but it should have been!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=1,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: EF67FAAED617A07C4EFC978F44BD41B77A4834BB83581C19FFAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=fail:EF67FAAED617A07C4EFC978F44BD41B77A4834BB83581C19FF
0;255;3;0;9;Message is not signed, but it should have been!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=2,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: 41D57E19D687AC4EBCC59179C6ADC1E155A252315EB1DF4F89AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=fail:41D57E19D687AC4EBCC59179C6ADC1E155A252315EB1DF4F89
0;255;3;0;9;Message is not signed, but it should have been!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=3,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: FEBB9B588209F4FAAB95A64FCAD9F4B0E5025356AC4E0935DDAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=fail:FEBB9B588209F4FAAB95A64FCAD9F4B0E5025356AC4E0935DD
0;255;3;0;9;Message is not signed, but it should have been!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail
0;255;3;0;9;Verification timeout
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=1,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: B1E3C1C0EA9829F4B0240246C91DB8B7C29EBB3255D4F6117CAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=fail:B1E3C1C0EA9829F4B0240246C91DB8B7C29EBB3255D4F6117C
0;255;3;0;9;Message is not signed, but it should have been!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=2,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: 92BAB2A723258EA923048423F81DA245F3F932AF64F22C5F40AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=fail:92BAB2A723258EA923048423F81DA245F3F932AF64F22C5F40
0;255;3;0;9;Message is not signed, but it should have been!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=3,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: B5D717D5B8F0F93A030B0125F273C002AED8DB29AC175C80E4AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=fail:B5D717D5B8F0F93A030B0125F273C002AED8DB29AC175C80E4
0;255;3;0;9;Message is not signed, but it should have been!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: B2D64F2C3EB1CCBA1250FF88120A8877E3414546D1B209C2AEAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=fail:B2D64F2C3EB1CCBA1250FF88120A8877E3414546D1B209C2AE
0;255;3;0;9;Message is not signed, but it should have been!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 15
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=0,l=2,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Mark node 3 as one that require signed messages
0;255;3;0;9;Mark node 3 as one that do not require whitelisting
0;255;3;0;9;Informing node 3 that we require signatures
0;255;3;0;9;Informing node 3 that we do not require whitelisting
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 15
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=0,l=2,sg=0,st=ok:
0;255;3;0;9;Verification timeout
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: 04C65FB99F798197CD5474AE7CC8625595B49655D311173412AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=ok:04C65FB99F798197CD5474AE7CC8625595B49655D311173412
0;255;3;0;9;Signature in message: 010017891177284094289CCA41F5E3
0;255;3;0;9;Message to process: 0300560011FF322E302E302D62657461
0;255;3;0;9;Current nonce: 04C65FB99F798197CD5474AE7CC8625595B49655D311173412AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;HMAC: 37A3D7AFFCD292EAFD64017F9845DD4AD49624C37348B63B87699D273CA5F27F
0;255;3;0;9;Signature bad: 01A3D7AFFCD292EAFD64017F9845DD
0;255;3;0;9;Signature verification failed!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: 66CC761B15338987ABA7DDEB567F78EFA6E32BD0A6895A8EDDAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=ok:66CC761B15338987ABA7DDEB567F78EFA6E32BD0A6895A8EDD
0;255;3;0;9;Signature in message: 0127D1050EA18AC0EE1FD1C5C1496AE3772D390F25E4D6B5
0;255;3;0;9;Message to process: 03000E2306FF00
0;255;3;0;9;Current nonce: 66CC761B15338987ABA7DDEB567F78EFA6E32BD0A6895A8EDDAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;HMAC: 69E44BF99E8E4842A47D14C11B849C059B9AD62B40FF8B3BC8F41FE419C032D8
0;255;3;0;9;Signature bad: 01E44BF99E8E4842A47D14C11B849C059B9AD62B40FF8B3B
0;255;3;0;9;Signature verification failed!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 16
0;255;3;0;9;read: 3-3-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
0;255;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: B588F20DC0FFBCCE5B40563F5618901E1F46F5996A90146687AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=ok:B588F20DC0FFBCCE5B40563F5618901E1F46F5996A90146687
0;255;3;0;9;Signature in message: 01C32806F6BA82E2BA08D8BC47AEAE
0;255;3;0;9;Message to process: 030056C400FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF0300
0;255;3;0;9;Current nonce: B588F20DC0FFBCCE5B40563F5618901E1F46F5996A90146687AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
0;255;3;0;9;HMAC: B532A92B09B8A52F01630B4FCD29CD4C380317D14FFCEDE34284BDF61C13953D
0;255;3;0;9;Signature bad: 0132A92B09B8A52F01630B4FCD29CD
0;255;3;0;9;Signature verification failed!
0;255;3;0;9;verify fail

Sensebender:

Starting sensor (RNONAA, 2.0.0-beta)
Radio init successful.
Sensebender Micro FW 1.5 - Online!
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Timeout waiting for nonce!
sign fail
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=11,pt=0,l=17,sg=0,st=ok:Sensebender Micro
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Timeout waiting for nonce!
sign fail
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=3,sg=0,st=ok:1.5
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=1,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Timeout waiting for nonce!
sign fail
send: 3-3-0-0 s=1,c=0,t=6,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=2,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Timeout waiting for nonce!
sign fail
send: 3-3-0-0 s=2,c=0,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=3,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Timeout waiting for nonce!
sign fail
send: 3-3-0-0 s=3,c=0,t=13,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
isMetric: 1
TempDiff :127.32
HumDiff  :141.00
T: 27.32
H: 41
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=1,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Timeout waiting for nonce!
sign fail
send: 3-3-0-0 s=1,c=1,t=0,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:27.3
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=2,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Timeout waiting for nonce!
sign fail
send: 3-3-0-0 s=2,c=1,t=1,pt=2,l=2,sg=0,st=ok:41
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=3,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Timeout waiting for nonce!
sign fail
send: 3-3-0-0 s=3,c=1,t=38,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:3.20
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Message to send could not be signed!
sign fail
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=0,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,st=ok:92
OTA FW update enabled
Signing required
Skipping security for command 3 type 15
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=0,l=2,sg=0,st=ok:
Waiting for GW to send signing preferences...
Skipping security for command 3 type 15
read: 0-0-3 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=0,l=2,sg=0:
Mark node 0 as one that require signed messages
Mark node 0 as one that do not require whitelisting
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Skipping security for command 3 type 17
read: 0-0-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0:AC862B6EC2DC2CD7EEF32DD146F7D57DA738137D592460D5E5
Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
Signing backend: ATSHA204
Message to process: 0300560011FF322E302E302D62657461
Current nonce: AC862B6EC2DC2CD7EEF32DD146F7D57DA738137D592460D5E5AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HMAC: 65C59C709F8B194B4005D830F86D1F502C0707090C131C5A15356A26C3D72C8E
Signature in message: 01C59C709F8B194B4005D830F86D1F
Message signed
Message to send has been signed
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=1,st=ok:2.0.0-beta
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Skipping security for command 3 type 17
read: 0-0-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0:99C1B06E9EA6E561D7089ECA5AECAD47247C3966848FDA3669
Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
Signing backend: ATSHA204
Message to process: 03000E2306FF00
Current nonce: 99C1B06E9EA6E561D7089ECA5AECAD47247C3966848FDA3669AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HMAC: 357966889DA8D9414C49B4AF9AACEDF786D05722F50DEE43CE05559514938EB7
Signature in message: 017966889DA8D9414C49B4AF9AACEDF786D05722F50DEE43
Message signed
Message to send has been signed
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=1,st=ok:0
Skipping security for command 3 type 16
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
Nonce requested from 0. Waiting...
Skipping security for command 3 type 17
read: 0-0-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0:A45F00D4D8F06B269F8D09928663D2088313BF36C2DCCC78B6
Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
Signing backend: ATSHA204
Message to process: 030056C400FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF0300
Current nonce: A45F00D4D8F06B269F8D09928663D2088313BF36C2DCCC78B6AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HMAC: 3A6645A45367626C11E5FCA20C19B6430DD840300ED79CB7B25097B5FED0897D
Signature in message: 016645A45367626C11E5FCA20C19B6
Message signed
Message to send has been signed
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=4,t=0,pt=6,l=10,sg=1,st=ok:FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF0300
Init complete, id=3, parent=0, distance=1
TempDiff :0.12
HumDiff  :0.50
TempDiff :0.00
HumDiff  :0.50
TempDiff :0.00
HumDiff  :0.00

There is a lot of "Nonce requested from 0. Waiting..."messages

Anticimex

@alexsh1
I am afraid I have to repeat what I have also said to other on the forum having problems with signing;
you do not have problems with signing, you have problems with radio (st=fail). As long as you have st=fail, signing will not work reliably. It will not be less secure, but it will not let messages through.

It is easy to suspect singing, because it might very well work better with signing off, but the reason for this is that signing uses the entire maximum message payload, and this makes it "harder" for the radio to send all the bits correctly, thus increasing the chances of a st=fail in case the link is not reliable.

alexsh1

@Anticimex I agree with you, but I find it interesting that sending a message fails exactly 9 times every time the node starts. I have changed different nrf24l01+ modules, put the transceivers close / far - it made absolutely no influence at all. 9 times st=fail and then everything works as expected.

Anticimex

@alexsh1 yes, it seem an odd coincidence. But I see nothing that signing can do about it I am afraid. st=fail means a message was not confirmed to get delivered properly and signing can't handle message drops. For security reasons, I have decided to not support retransmissions of nonces. If it can't be delivered, the entire signing session is considered compromised and have to be restarted with the exchange of a new nonce.

alexsh1

@Anticimex said:

@alexsh1 yes, it seem an odd coincidence.

It is even more interesting that I have zero st=fail after nonce is received .
I can probably change the GW settings and the channel to make sure this is not causing any issues, but 9 st=fail in the beginning every time is a strange coincidence.

@ximinez Did you manage to get it sorted? How many st=fail do you have in the beginning?
Anyone else is having similar issues?

Anticimex

@alexsh1 Perhaps a long stabilization time for a power supply or clock on the node or gw cause it. You could try to add some delays and see if it is time-after-power-on that is the issue or whatever it might be. It is not signing in any case, because it is the node sending that reports st=fail. That is a rf issue. It always is. The nonce has been generated as it should, and the signing backend trusts the transport layer to handle the transmission of the databuffer, and in this case the transport layer reports back that it could not.

alexsh1

@Anticimex Just an idea - could it be that nonce is not generated in the beginning and requires some time? I'll do some testing tonight

Anticimex

@alexsh1 No, nonces are being generated:

0;255;3;0;9;SHA256: 86DEAE1DAF50D577A4E2262B33ABF9DEE05DD8FAF84F94F50900000000000000
0;255;3;0;9;Transmittng nonce
0;255;3;0;9;Skipping security for command 3 type 17
0;255;3;0;9;send: 0-0-3-3 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=fail:86DEAE1DAF50D577A4E2262B33ABF9DEE05DD8FAF84F94F509

and the generated nonce is not transmitted correctly (st=fail) due to some transport issue.

alexsh1

@Anticimex said:

@alexsh1 No, nonces are being generated:

Than I am out of guesses - I cannot explain why st=fail comes up.
FYG, I tried it without signing and it works just fine. No st=fail.
There must be something between signing and transportation or transportation after signing?

Anticimex

@alexsh1 like I said, signing is not in itself the problem. The problem is that big messages are failing. You can just try by generating big messages yourself and you will get the same problem. I know this by looking on what generates st=fail and it is the transport layer. Signing generates the data to be transmitted, and this data is printed and shown to be correct. Bigger messages require more reliable communications. Shorter messages has a better chance of being transmitted correctly. It is that simple. Many have reported the sake issue and have solved it by improving radio power decoupling, rearranging the sensor placement or improve the power supplies.

alexsh1

@Anticimex said:
Many have reported the sake issue and have solved it by improving radio power decoupling, rearranging the sensor placement or improve the power supplies.

I tried

powering GW/Sensobender from a different source (battery, USB, PSU - 12V in case of GW, 5v in case of sensebender via LDO)
swapped a few radios. Most of these are from working nodes with caps soldered. Maybe I should try completely different ones from a different batch? I mixed up three batches with no improvement.
Tried to place GW and the sensebender 1m/5m/10m apart
GW radio is powered via the AMS1117 3.3v

So far it is the same result. Not sure I can come up with anything obvious unless you can suggest

Anticimex

@alexsh1 sorry, I have not much else to suggest except experimenting with delays to see if the issue with failed transmissions at node startup can be avoided. I am no specialist on the radio. I'm the security guy and I see no wrong with the behaviour of those parts so I am short of any more useful suggestions I am afraid.

hek

@alexsh1

When did you last update the library (on the gw)? @Yveaux recently added a irq-based de-queuing from the radios FIFO. It could help on improving things.

Otherwise the only advice I have is to skip any amplified radio on gateway (if you have) and tweak powering of radio power on gw.

alexsh1

@Anticimex Well, at least we are fine on the security part :-)
I'll experiment more on the radio part when I have time - why there are only 24h in a day? (rhetorical question)

alexsh1

@hek said:

@alexsh1

When did you last update the library (on the gw)? @Yveaux recently added a irq-based de-queuing from the radios FIFO. It could help on improving things.

Otherwise the only advice I have is to skip any amplified radio on gateway (if you have) and tweak powering of radio power on gw.

@hek
I downloaded the dev on 26/05 so it is very recent.
I have normal radios both ends, but the idea is to have amplified one on the GW as well and change rf24_pa_max. Additionally, I'll try to mix as many radios as I can have. Who knows?

To be honest, things were working OKish before as I took it seriously decoupling radios etc. This voodoo dance around radios really irritates me. Life is too short to waist it - I am now thinking seriously switching to RMF69W or probably to RFM95* (Lora)

Anticimex

@alexsh1 yesh i have bashed my head on rf24 stability myself and have decided to base my network on rfm69:s instead. Too much chatter @2.4ghz. I hope the 69:s have better range and they also have the bonus of AES encryption in hw if you want to obfuscate the communication some. Signing adds netter security, but the paranoid can combine signing with encryption :) (yes rf24 can use AES encryption in software, but that cost memory and some overhead instead)

alexsh1

Whatever I did, did not help to solve st=fail

When I disable signing I have got the following (not a signle st=fail):

Starting sensor (RNONA-, 2.0.0-beta)
Radio init successful.
Sensebender Micro FW 1.5 - Online!
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=11,pt=0,l=17,sg=0,st=ok:Sensebender Micro
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=3,sg=0,st=ok:1.5
send: 3-3-0-0 s=1,c=0,t=6,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
send: 3-3-0-0 s=2,c=0,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
send: 3-3-0-0 s=3,c=0,t=13,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
isMetric: 1
TempDiff :125.61
HumDiff  :150.00
T: 25.61
H: 50
send: 3-3-0-0 s=1,c=1,t=0,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:25.6
send: 3-3-0-0 s=2,c=1,t=1,pt=2,l=2,sg=0,st=ok:50
send: 3-3-0-0 s=3,c=1,t=38,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:3.09
send: 3-3-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=0,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,st=ok:85

I am going to try different channels now with signing

Anticimex

@alexsh1 yes, without signing your messages are significantly shorter, and thus have a better chance of getting through. You can try experimenting with amplification as well.

Yveaux

@Anticimex just a noob question: do you have an idea of the performance penalty of (software) signing? Any benchmark figures?

Anticimex

@Yveaux no, sorry have not got around to compare them. But software signing is actually quicker due to the single write bit banging for the atsha204a. One way to see the difference is measuring the delay for an ACK to come back from a node that require signed messages. I have no figures, but a node with software signing responds slightly faster.

Sensebender Micro

22

11.7k

11.2k

113.1k