May be a beacon qualified as BLE 4.x device without random?

RE: May be a beacon qualified as BLE 4.x device without random?

Petter Myhre — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 13:09:29 GMT

I understand. It is a bit strange, I'm not sure why they would implement it this way. Per spec it should be a random delay as you say.

RE: May be a beacon qualified as BLE 4.x device without random?

Aleksei Vegner — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:12:19 GMT

Raddot or Milwaukee beacons at least have random addition to avoid collisions but Bosch ones don't. So the question actually was may Bosch declare beacons as BLE 4.2 devices in such a case?

RE: May be a beacon qualified as BLE 4.x device without random?

Aleksei Vegner — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:10:42 GMT

Yes, I use SDK 14.0.0 and SoftDevice 5.0.0 for my beacon scanners.

RE: May be a beacon qualified as BLE 4.x device without random?

Aleksei Vegner — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:08:38 GMT

Sorry for possible misunderstanding. By saying my beacons I mean BOSCH GCC 30 TrackTags. Those beacons don't follow the requirement of the random addition for each advertising event. That's the problem. I scan for Bosch beacons on Nordic's Thingy 52. I developed special firmware for Thingy to measure random of the Bosch beacons. That's what I meant.

RE: May be a beacon qualified as BLE 4.x device without random?

Petter Myhre — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 11:51:34 GMT

I'm having trouble understanding you. You refer to "some beacons" and Thingy52. Could you be more specific on what kind of hardware these beacons are? And what firmware you are running on them? Are you using our SoftDevices? Our SDK? How are you advertising in your code?