3 Replies Latest reply on May 7, 2020 11:40 PM by KotnaniK_71

    snip.wifi_mesh on CYW943907AEVAL1F?

    LuKo_4670956

      I'm trying to test snip.wifi_mesh using the CYW943907AEVAL1F development board.  Initially the build failed because CYW943907AEVAL1F was not in VALID_PLATFORMS.  Since there were other 43907 based boards in the list, I modified wifi_mesh.mk to add CYW943907AEVAL1F.  After the modification, I was able to build and run the snip succesfully.

       

      However, it doesn't seem to work very well.  With two nodes, they successfully connect to each other "mesh_events_handler: Receieved MESH PAIRED event", but then an iperf test gets less than 1 Mbps. (As compared to a test with the same units in AP and STA modes getting around 40 Mbps ).  If I add a third node with all units in range of each other, they often can't even ping each other after 5-10 minutes,.

       

      Is there some known issue with wifi_mesh that doesn't work on CYW943907AEVAL1F or WICED Studio 6.4?

      Is there some additional configuration options needed?

       

      Versions:

      API: 12.2 Data: 9.10.49 Compiler: 1.31.3 ClmImport: 1.36.3 Creation: 2018-01-26 16:32:52

      wl0: May 17 2018 19:17:13 version 15.168.89.19 (r689962) FWID 01-7e2f1e1

       

      Thanks,

      - Luke

        • 1. Re: snip.wifi_mesh on CYW943907AEVAL1F?
          KotnaniK_71

          Hi Luke,

           

          Usually we perform the testing in an RF chamber to eliminate the interference.

          Can you please let me know the below details to proceed further.

          - your testing environment,

          - Transport layer protocol used, whether UDP or TCP,

          - Security settings (open or WPA2) that you've used and

          - iperf and the wifi mesh commands you've used for your setup.

           

          Thanks.

          • 2. Re: snip.wifi_mesh on CYW943907AEVAL1F?
            LuKo_4670956
            • Testing environment is open air indoors with two CYW943907AEVAL1F boards so I realize there will be interference.
            • default iperf settings (so TCP)
            • For the AP/STA test I used test.console demo with both open (32 Mbps) and wpa2_aes (25-38 Mbps) encryption settings
            • For the mesh test I used snip.wifi_mesh demo, wait for them to connect and then do the iperf commands (18-20 Mbps)
            • iperf was just "iperf -s" on server and "iperf -c 192.168.1.194" on client
            • channel 48, bandwidth 20 for both mesh and AP modes

             

            In trying to simplify for this response, I think I figured out what was going on with the poor iperf performance.  I was using the iperf window option "-w 1m".  If I use that option on both sides "iperf -s -w 1m", "iperf -c 192.168.1.194 -w 1m:" then the performance is the less than 1 Mbps previously described.  This option works ok on the "test.console" app.

             

            I'm still having trouble when using 3 nodes.  Setup with 3 nodes spread around the room, 2 on laptops, 1 on USB power pack.

            1. Power on all units.
            2. Verify I can ping from first unit (192.168.1.200) to the the other two (192.168.1.194) and (192.168.1.146)
            3. Reset unit 1 with button
            4. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes it works to one of the other nodes but not both.  Waiting as much as 5 minutes doesn't help
            5. I usually get two "Received MESH PAIRED event" messages within 30 seconds of a reboot, but that doesn't seem to have any relation with if ping works or not.

             

             

            - Luke

            • 3. Re: snip.wifi_mesh on CYW943907AEVAL1F?
              KotnaniK_71

              Hi Luke,

               

              The snip.wifi_mesh app example was done as a simple proof of concept and it does not comply with the 802.11s mesh standard and also there is no plan to extend the application.

              I request you to please get in touch with our Cypress sales/marketing team for more information.

               

              Thanks.

              1 of 1 people found this helpful