Hi,
Answers inline.
> >> Another quick question... When you do a wireshark of something with
> >> 6lowpan fragmentation, are you getting malformed packet errors for
> >> the first packet? I'm trying to decide whether this is something
> >> that could hold me up, or whether it's a wireshark issue
On 08/03/2012 10:19 AM, Tony Cheneau wrote:
>> certainly not 400ms, so I'm not seeing that issue (whatever it is/was).
> I haven't changed the baud rate (so it's 115200), and my pings are
> I'm not too certain that the baudrate gave a 20 times performance
> increase. However, I believe that a 11520
Hi David, thanks for your analysis. Responses are inline.
On 08/03/2012 09:53 AM, David Kopf wrote:
> The sequence numbers in your pcap are not incrementing, may or may not
> be a problem but some software will ignore duplicates.
>
I see the sequence number in the 802.15.4 header is always set to
Hi David,
> The sequence numbers in your pcap are not incrementing, may or may
> not be a problem but some software will ignore duplicates.
This is because the 6lowpan code, when building the 802.15.4 header,
does not set the sequence number field. I plan on releasing this patch
alongside the ot
Hi Alan,
See my response inline.
> I haven't changed the baud rate (so it's 115200), and my pings are
> certainly not 400ms, so I'm not seeing that issue (whatever it
> is/was).
I'm not too certain that the baudrate gave a 20 times performance
increase. However, I believe that a 115200 bps baud
Hi Tony,
I haven't changed the baud rate (so it's 115200), and my pings are
certainly not 400ms, so I'm not seeing that issue (whatever it is/was).
Another quick question... When you do a wireshark of something with
6lowpan fragmentation, are you getting malformed packet errors for the
first pack
