it guarantees delivery.   It doesn't guarantee packet boundarys.    String
of bytes.s

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 3:33 PM, steve ayer <[email protected]> wrote:

> um,
>
> "standard tcp programming" practice has a clear understanding that the tcp
> protocol guarantees delivery of its payload.
>
> On 05/14/2011 02:45 PM, Phil Reaston wrote:
>
>> Don't forget to consider the receiving end too. If you're on windows
>> for instance and you use sockets for the receive rather than a BT COM
>> port then you're going to get partial packets anyway. Standard tcp
>> programming.
>>
>> Phil Reaston
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On May 14, 2011, at 9:44, Benjamin Kuris<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>
>>  Similar request went out to Roving Networks about 18 months ago from
>>> another customer-- fell on ambivalent ears and there was no indication
>>> of intent from RN to support at this level.  In fact customer couldn't
>>> even get an answer as to the size of the serial FIFO on the module.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that much of this functionality is defined by CSR
>>> Bluecore implementation and RN is just running a command parser in the
>>> measly virtual machine cycles they get.  So the scheme is also quite
>>> complex at the chip level...
>>>
>>> -Ben
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Burns, Adrian<[email protected]>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't disagree steve, the BT stack is overly complicated, and I think we
>>>> came to the same conclusion before on the SPP MTU discussion(see attached)
>>>>
>>>> the RN-42 physical layer seems to send random transmission unit sizes
>>>> and we assume the Shimmer Bluetooth driver is feeding it full payload bytes
>>>> continuously without a significant delay between any of the payload 
>>>> bytes...
>>>> so RN-42 should see the delay after the last payload byte received from
>>>> MSP, parcel up app SPP data payload, add L2CAP framing and off it goes over
>>>> the air in whatever baseband transmission unit is big enough to fit around
>>>> the packet (they are defined in BT spec)....this aint happening obviously 
>>>> on
>>>> RN-42 and im not 100% sure if it's actually a bug or not
>>>> I think the only hope to fix this would be if Roving Networks changed
>>>> their virtual machine firmware to hold its bytes until a programmed
>>>> transmission unit size is met, then flush out a packet at a time rather 
>>>> than
>>>> just random chunks
>>>>
>>>> I might get ping Roving Networks on this next week if I get a chance,
>>>> they should be able to get to the bottom of it, otherwise I think this 
>>>> issue
>>>> may pop its head up again and again :-0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: steve ayer [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:28 PM
>>>> To: Burns, Adrian
>>>> Cc: Nicholas Hosein; [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Shimmer-users] Bluetooth packet fragmentation
>>>>
>>>> hi adrian,
>>>>
>>>> that may be, but the bottom line is that the bluetooth physical layer
>>>> apparently (go ahead, what's the bluetooth mtu?) has no concept of its
>>>> own transmission units, unlike other wireless protocols like 802.11 and
>>>> 802.15.4.  depending upon payload-transport protocols to keep your bytes
>>>> together is a pretty taudry way to conduct stateful wireless
>>>> communications, imho...
>>>>
>>>> but as you point out, this is nothing (independent of the os) that a
>>>> couple of lines of python won't cure.  it's just too bad that those
>>>> lines have to be carted around in middleware, or worse, in applications.
>>>>
>>>> $0.02,
>>>>
>>>> steve
>>>>
>>>> On 05/14/2011 07:44 AM, Burns, Adrian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> gents, Just to add here that what you are seeing is normal for SPP as
>>>>> its just a serial interface type profile supporting streams of bytes..
>>>>> If it were OBEX for example then you would have full re-assembly of
>>>>> application level packets, but that's different profiles(OPP and FTP..)
>>>>>
>>>>> L2CAP has segmentation and reassembly to allow transfer of larger
>>>>> packets than lower layers support but this is link level stuff not
>>>>> application level....the chunks of data you see on the host are what the
>>>>> baseband radio segmented and then transferred over the air
>>>>> So as you know, the chunks will arrive at the host in sequence and you
>>>>> have to wait on the host for a few segments until it adds up to 122 bytes,
>>>>> then you have a packet...Not ideal I know as I have had to do the very 
>>>>> same
>>>>> on android hosts
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:
>>>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of steve ayer
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 9:40 PM
>>>>> To: Nicholas Hosein
>>>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Shimmer-users] Bluetooth packet fragmentation
>>>>>
>>>>> yup,
>>>>>
>>>>> that's bluetooth for you.  for all of the protocol's complexity, you
>>>>> still have to frame your own packets.
>>>>>
>>>>> -steve
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/13/2011 04:38 PM, Nicholas Hosein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So i noticed when i send a packet from bluetooth (122 bytes / packet)
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> comes to the host broken up into multiple packets. This is an example
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> what the host receives when i send 4x122byte packets from the mote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Data Size: 1 *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Data Size: 64 *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Data Size: 57 *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Data Size: 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Data Size: 66
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Data Size: 55
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Data Size: 4 *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Data Size: 67 *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Data Size: 51 *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Data Size: 11
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Data Size: 54
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Data Size: 57
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this normal or am i doing something wrong? It would be much easier
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> i just got one packet instead of having to send a payload and append
>>>>>> multiple packets together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much thanks guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Shimmer-users mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> https://lists.eecs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/shimmer-users
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Shimmer-users mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://lists.eecs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/shimmer-users
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Intel Ireland Limited (Branch)
>>>>> Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland
>>>>> Registered Number: E902934
>>>>>
>>>>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
>>>>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>>>>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>>>>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>>>>>
>>>>>  -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Intel Ireland Limited (Branch)
>>>> Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland
>>>> Registered Number: E902934
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
>>>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>>>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>>>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Shimmer-users mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.eecs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/shimmer-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> Shimmer-users mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.eecs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/shimmer-users
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Shimmer-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.eecs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/shimmer-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Shimmer-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.eecs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/shimmer-users
>



-- 
Eric B. Decker
Senior (over 50 :-) Researcher
_______________________________________________
Shimmer-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.eecs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/shimmer-users

Reply via email to