Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CSI acquisition on FTM packets (IDFGH-11565) #12686

Closed
3 tasks done
a-arun1 opened this issue Nov 28, 2023 · 7 comments
Closed
3 tasks done

CSI acquisition on FTM packets (IDFGH-11565) #12686

a-arun1 opened this issue Nov 28, 2023 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
Resolution: Done Issue is done internally Status: Done Issue is done internally Type: Bug bugs in IDF

Comments

@a-arun1
Copy link

a-arun1 commented Nov 28, 2023

Answers checklist.

  • I have read the documentation ESP-IDF Programming Guide and the issue is not addressed there.
  • I have updated my IDF branch (master or release) to the latest version and checked that the issue is present there.
  • I have searched the issue tracker for a similar issue and not found a similar issue.

IDF version.

v5.0-dev-4723-g30e8f19f5a-dirty

Espressif SoC revision.

ESP32-S3 (revision v0.1)

Operating System used.

Linux

How did you build your project?

Command line with idf.py

If you are using Windows, please specify command line type.

CMD

Development Kit.

ESP32 S3 WROOM 1

Power Supply used.

USB

What is the expected behavior?

CSI should be reliably extracted both on the responder and initiator.

What is the actual behavior?

However, I find that the CSI is not acquired on the packets sent by the "Initiator" consistently by the "Responder". The CSI on the packets sent by the "Responder" is consistently acquired by the "Initiator".

Simply put,

(CSI acquired consistently) Initiator <-------- Responder
Initiator --------> Responder (CSI acquired inconsistently)

What does "consistent" mean? Here is the log of the data acquired at the initiator: initiator_logs.txt

I can measure the CSI on all the packets received by the initiator during the FTM session, 7 in total, which is expected. It is also clear that these packets are from the FTM session: time differences between the packet arrivals time for the CSI measurement match closely with the times reported by FTM.

However, this is the log acquired by the responder: responder_logs.txt

Firstly, I don't receive enough packets from the initiator, and secondly, the packet arrival times do not correspond to the times reported by the FTM session in the "initiator_logs.txt" file.

Finally, I also tested this system by setting up a third ESP32-S3 in monitor mode, filtered the packets from the initiator and responder, and observed the same behavior. This tells me that the issue is not the responder's inability to acquire CSI, but the initiator's packet transmission.

How can I reliably acquire CSI on the reponder for the CSI packets transmitted from the initiator?

Steps to reproduce.

Code on initiator: ftm_main_init_csi.txt

Code on responder: ftm_main_resp_csi.txt

Code on monitor: app_main.txt

Debug Logs.

No response

More Information.

I am interested in implementing the enhanced FTM techniques mentioned in the Ubilocate and FUSIC papers. So, I am trying to extract CSI on the FTM packets exchanged between two ESP32-S3 modules.

@a-arun1 a-arun1 added the Type: Bug bugs in IDF label Nov 28, 2023
@espressif-bot espressif-bot added the Status: Opened Issue is new label Nov 28, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot changed the title CSI acquisition on FTM packets CSI acquisition on FTM packets (IDFGH-11565) Nov 28, 2023
@MaxwellAlan
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @a-arun1

I am interested in implementing the enhanced FTM techniques mentioned in the Ubilocate and FUSIC papers. So, I am trying to extract CSI on the FTM packets exchanged between two ESP32-S3 modules.

Interesting ideas 👍

Well, if you want to get CSI from FTM, two things you need to check:
1.menuconfig should enable CSI feat.
2.the FTM action frame's data rate(you can check from sniffer logs) should be OFDM(11g or 11n, not 11b rate).

Thanks.

@espressif-bot espressif-bot added the Awaiting Response awaiting a response from the author label Mar 18, 2024
@espressif-bot espressif-bot added Status: Reviewing Issue is being reviewed and removed Status: Opened Issue is new labels Jun 7, 2024
@Sherry616
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @a-arun1, could you please share your latest updates on this issue? Thanks.

@a-arun1
Copy link
Author

a-arun1 commented Jul 18, 2024

Thank you for following up. I tried these suggestion however, it did not help. We have already enabled CSI collection with menuconfig and we have confirmed it is 11g rate.

@espressif-bot espressif-bot added Status: In Progress Work is in progress and removed Status: Reviewing Issue is being reviewed Awaiting Response awaiting a response from the author labels Jul 18, 2024
@zhangyanjiaoesp
Copy link
Collaborator

@a-arun1 Thanks for update, we will check this issue with your test code ASAP.

@espressif-bot espressif-bot added Status: Opened Issue is new and removed Status: In Progress Work is in progress labels Sep 11, 2024
@zhangyanjiaoesp
Copy link
Collaborator

@a-arun1 Could you please test again with the latest master branch? We have recently addressed some FTM-related issues.

@espressif-bot espressif-bot added Status: In Progress Work is in progress and removed Status: Opened Issue is new labels Sep 18, 2024
@zhangyanjiaoesp
Copy link
Collaborator

@a-arun1 Do you still have this issue? If not, can we close it ?

@Alvin1Zhang
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for reporting, will close for now, feel free to reopen if the issue still happens.

@espressif-bot espressif-bot added Status: Done Issue is done internally Resolution: Done Issue is done internally and removed Status: In Progress Work is in progress labels Dec 23, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Resolution: Done Issue is done internally Status: Done Issue is done internally Type: Bug bugs in IDF
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants