Thanks to all three of you for the quick reply! I think I understand the problem now … will test it once I‘m back in the lab. @Oliver: yes, use of 29 bit CAN IDs is intentional. Regards, Marvin Von meinem iPhone gesendet > Am 22.11.2022 um 13:58 schrieb Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > >> On 21.11.22 17:45, Patrick Menschel wrote: >>> Am 21.11.22 um 17:11 schrieb Andre Naujoks: >>> Am 21.11.22 um 13:08 schrieb Marvin Ludersdorfer: >>>> >>>> In another terminal, I run echo 22 F1 95 | isotpsend -s 00000680 -d 00000780 can0 -p 0x00 >> Typical error, >> exchange -s and -d >> isotprecv works the other way around. > > :-D Yes. Trapped into this myself some times. > > Btw. @Marvin are you really sure with the given values for the CAN IDs? > > The help text says: > > Usage: isotpsend [options] <CAN interface> > Options: > -s <can_id> (source can_id. Use 8 digits for extended IDs) > -d <can_id> (destination can_id. Use 8 digits for extended IDs) > > So your IDs 00000680 and 00000780 are 29 bit CAN identifiers! > > Is this intentionally? > > Some people mix up the nominal values with the 11/29-bit IDs and think every CAN ID below 0x800 is a 11 bit CAN ID. > > Regards, > Oliver
