Automatically response to indication(s120)

RE: Automatically response to indication(s120)

Petter Myhre — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 10:47:44 GMT

It could be something with the implementation. Maybe you could edit your answer and include some code where you implement it? Could you also include a sniffer trace if possible?

RE: Automatically response to indication(s120)

John — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:16:34 GMT

Thanks a lot for help! I test this,and if I have a good rssi (power of signal from beacon )is ok,using notification ,all packets are send with succes,but If I have a bad rssi(bed power of signal from beacon and if this oscillates) I lose some packets.So I decided to use indication.With this,in any condition ,the packets are send with success.Maybe I missed something at implementation with notification if I lose packets ?Maybe I transmit the packets quickly and because of this we can lose if I have a bad signal?

RE: Automatically response to indication(s120)

Petter Myhre — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:49:32 GMT

You don't lose packets any more packets by using notifications, all packets are acknowledged in the link layer. The difference is that with an indication the application on the client side must also confirm.

RE: Automatically response to indication(s120)

John — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:16:13 GMT

Yes,I want to use indication for to be sure that the packets were received successfully by client.I don't want to lose packets.

RE: Automatically response to indication(s120)

Ulrich Myhre — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:15:53 GMT

Is there a reason why you do not use simple notifications then? Indications are meant to be confirmed, and are inherently slower. Are you using a specific profile that requires this? As Petter says, there are no options to automatically respond to indications.

There are use-cases where this restriction makes sense, e.g. with Service Changed and attribute caching. The spec states that once a Service Changed indication has been confirmed "(...) the server can consider the client to be aware of the updated Attribute Handles", which means you have to re-discover parts of the database before you're technically allowed to send a confirm.

RE: Automatically response to indication(s120)

John — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:03:56 GMT

Thanks a lot Petter Myhere ,I don't want to call every time sd_ble_gattc_hv_confirm() after BLE_GATTC_EVT_HVX event beacause if this will not send with succsess(will return NRF_BUSY) I will block the server which send me the indication(if I have more than one server connected with me,the next server will override tx buffer for confirmation because I receive packets for many servers on a connection interval ). I want to know if I can configurate at first time as the client to respond alone with a confirmation to server and this will manage alone confiramtion to the server?

RE: Automatically response to indication(s120)

Petter Myhre — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:56:15 GMT

No such option exist. Could you explain a bit more about your use case?

RE: Automatically response to indication(s120)

John — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:45:41 GMT

But exist a option for indication through can automatically confirm receipt of indication ?(without call every time sd_ble_gattc_hv_confirm() after I receive BLE_GATTC_EVT_HVX event )

RE: Automatically response to indication(s120)

Petter Myhre — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:28:58 GMT

Indications must be confirmed by the application, but notifications don't.