This post is older than 2 years and might not be relevant anymore
More Info: Consider searching for newer posts

Promiscuous listen for nRF24L01+

I would like for the nodes in the network to be able to talk to any other node, even if the other node address are not pre-configured.

For example, I would like to be able to add nodes and have them transmit to a destination, without that destination having been pre-configured to know the address of the new node.

Is that possible?

The intent is to be able to make the network dynamic and expandable, without having to pre-configure all of the node addresses. This would be possible if a node could do a listen from any address, and find out upon receipt the address of the sender.

Dave

  • Hi Dretz,

    I don't really understand your requirement.

    Why would the receiver PRX need to know about the transmitter PTX in advance ??

    PRX listens to any packet that arrive with the address matches with its own RX addresses (up to 6).

    So more than 1 PTX can transmit data to one PRX address (one pipe) with no problem. Of course there will be collision if they transmit at the same time, but if they have different retransmission delays, it should be fine.

  • Hi Hung,

    Thanks for your comments. I think what this means is that a device can receive from anyone by using a "global" receive address, while it can also receive on a specific address by using its own address.

    For example, if the "global" address were a number like 0xFF, and stations were number 1, 2, and 3, each station would set its PRX to be 0xFF and 1, 2, or 3. Pipe 0 would be using PRX 0xFF, and Pipe 1 would be using the PRX of its station address. That would allow each station to receive from either Pipe - meaning either a "broadcast" to 0xFF, or a directed packet to 1,2, or 3.

    There appears to be one slight problem of discovering who the sender is upon receiving a packet. However, this could be solved by using a header byte inside of the payload. That actually would be a satisfactory solution.

    Does the above make sense conceptually?

    Dave

  • @Dave: Yes, it's a very good solution. I don't see any problem with that.

Related