Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tinydtls-dev] Question about current status/support with Contiki
Hello Laurent,

Just to have a quick comparative, your fork of Contiki is up-date?   I did my fork near to November, and all the tests have been taken the branch of 3.0 as base.
I was wondering to fetch the all the recently commits  and try again. Plus, probably I'll try it with your  fork :)

Sincerely, Raul Fuentes

2016-05-12 22:41 GMT+02:00 Laurent Deru <laurent.deru@xxxxxxxx>:
Hello,

In cetic 6lbr I have integrated the latest version from eclipse repo and it works fine using Coojamotes and CC26xx (and I believe CC2538 too) It has been validated with the tinyDTLS client as well as Californium + Scandium. I don't remember any extra fixes except for compilation issues, but I will have a look a gain, maybe I forgot to report here a modification I did.

Kind regards,
Laurent.


On 2016-05-12 18:42, Raul Fuentes wrote:
TL;DR:  The current code (Tinydtls 0.8.6) is not compatible with
Contiki 3.0. 

This is due a change between the version of TinyDTLS 0.8.2  and 
0.8.6  that only affects Contiki (I never had this issue with RIOT).

BUT  I was unable to track the problem, is not apparent in the
#Define contiki lines.

The main issue I'm having is the following:  When the main function
generates the destination addresses and stored it in the session_t
variable everything is ok. BUT once the session is called from the
event (read_peer)  the data seems to be wrongly formatted, plus seems
that MEMB is returning error. Example :

Dst addresses saved to the session (before dtls_connect) is
FE80::200:3 ,
Dst addresses returned at the events:  : ::1200:08fe

I have two testing branches: CoAPS (0.8.2) and 6CoAPS (which has an
0.8.6 tested with RIOT). 

Both branches present the issue with 0.8.6.
Both branches can work with the 0.8.2 but only with the cipher suite
PSK (WTH?) and very inefficient with a lot of retransmission.

I even tried using extern connections  with the Linux client's but
sadly they died in the translation from Cooja to the tunnel, and my
real motes don't have enough memory for my tests.

Possible reason:  I have count at least 3  "threads" (2 inside of
TinyDTLS, one for the main program). Contiki threads are not real
threads and should be a minimum, but this mean re-working your part of
Contiki. 

This is very probably because is almost a lucky occasion when the
dtls-client is able to transmit.

---------------------

The behavior of Tinydtls 0.3.1 was too different with Contiki 2.6, but
those regression testing are too complex and I need to focus on my
thesis.

_______________________________________________
tinydtls-dev mailing list
tinydtls-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tinydtls-dev
_______________________________________________
tinydtls-dev mailing list
tinydtls-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tinydtls-dev

Back to the top