AltBeacon / spec

AltBeacon Technical Specification
http://altbeacon.org
208 stars 34 forks source link

Extra Byte Received #28

Closed GreyMark7650 closed 9 years ago

GreyMark7650 commented 9 years ago

I am trying to analyse the packet data I am receiving from two different AltBeacons (RadBeacon and easiBeacon). I have compared the received data with the sepcification and can match all except one byte.There seems to be one more byte than expected between the BLE header and the AltBeacon Advertisment. Since both beacons send the same format I could just ignore it I know, but it would be nice to know what the issue is. See below for the data packets. Any help would be appreciated.

MarkW

image

davidgyoung commented 9 years ago

The individual bits of that flags value have the following meanings:

 bit 0 LE Limited Discoverable Mode
 bit 1 LE General Discoverable Mode
 bit 2 BR/EDR Not Supported
 bit 3 Simultaneous LE and BR/EDR to Same Device Capable (controller)
 bit 4 Simultaneous LE and BR/EDR to Same Device Capable (Host)

In the first case, value 0x06 has "LE General Discoverable Mode" set and "BR/EDR Not Supported"

In the second case, value 0x04 has "BR/EDR Not Supported"

So the difference is basically that the RadBeacon is telling you it is configurable and the EZBeacon is not.

GreyMark7650 commented 9 years ago

Thanks for the information on that byte. That isn't my issue though. The specification has only three bytes for flags - this is a fourth byte.

image

MarkW

davemradnet commented 9 years ago

The first byte you have listed in AD Flags 0x1F is not part of the AD Flags. It's the PDU length (31 bytes).

GreyMark7650 commented 9 years ago

Thanks, I figured that out from this post: https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/question/15801/s110-advertising-access-address-and-other-questions/

I still think that there is an error in the above diagram, but it relates to the BLE PDU part of the diagram. The "extra byte" should be shown between the 6 byte AvdA and 3 Byte AD Flags. It is as you say the length of the data for the next (and only) report.

MarkW

davemradnet commented 9 years ago

Glad you got it worked out, some additional, relatively minor points: