what does this mean...

[Dave Hitchman]

7488 111.881 Slave_0xc844ed5f LE 1M SMP 6 151µs 1 0 True 1 Rcvd Security Request: AuthReq: Bonding

Apparently the SOURCE was the 'slave' but the message was a 'received' security request... does this mean the slave received this, in which case how is it the 'source'? I am very very confused by this line. It does look - and fits the code if it is - that the slave is requesting to change the security level using a bond as the check, this fits because in this case the slave thinks it has a bonding with the master in the conversation and it does want to move the security up a notch.

Sadly of course this little conversation is only captured once in about 8 or 10 times it happens which makes debugging using this a bit useless anyway.

[Einar Thorsrud]

Hi,

This looks like a line from a Bluetooth LE sniffer trace in Wireshark.

Apparently the SOURCE was the 'slave'

That means that the slave/peripheral send this packet.

does this mean the slave received this, in which case how is it the 'source'?

No, the packet was sent by the slave.

[Dave Hitchman]

So again...
7488 111.881 Slave_0xc844ed5f LE 1M SMP 6 151µs 1 0 True 1 Rcvd Security Request: AuthReq: Bonding

If the slave was the source sending the packet why does the description say received?

[Einar Thorsrud]

I don't know why someone long back in time decided to put Rcvd as the first word of the packet descrption (that or "Sent" is the first word in the descrption of most of the packets in Wireshark). The key is that the packet was sent from the slave.

[Dave Hitchman]

then it sounds like a defect that should be fixed ASAP as it is totally confusing. I am pretty sure it is the device sending the security request as the code does exist to do that on connection.

[Einar Thorsrud]

I don't see why this is a bug. It is how things are done in Wireshark, and it is also done this way with other protocols. Also, even though we use Wireshark for our nRF Sniffer, Wireshark is not a Nordic product, so if you really think this should be changed I suggest you suggest it to the Wireshark team (see ReportingBugs).