IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lowapp] [6lowpan] hardware trends, new vs. existing protocols [Re: 4861 usage in LLNs]

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 10 November 2009 03:46 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: 6lowapp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowapp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658F23A6822; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:46:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id buaaZ66kOD9u; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:46:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9:209:3dff:fe00:7136]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492823A6767; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:46:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAA3kkcu003525; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:46:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from host-24-126.meeting.ietf.org (host-24-126.meeting.ietf.org [133.93.24.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A60B818; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:46:44 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <4AF8D5A0.1020600@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:46:39 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7DADDFD8-D1E1-4DF2-BD57-1A8ED1CFA5B0@tzi.org>
References: <87y6mfwbfk.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com> <1257809361.11184.123.camel@dellx1> <BCFFD6A3-8B4F-49CF-A657-DE34485134E1@tzi.org> <4AF8C20C.3070905@eecs.berkeley.edu> <9256B623-E13C-4EB3-9DE9-F850F2E828AC@tzi.org> <6B8DDEBE-5550-4795-81E0-DC137114EF83@archrock.com> <4AF8D5A0.1020600@eecs.berkeley.edu>
To: Kris Pister <pister@eecs.berkeley.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Cc: 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] [6lowpan] hardware trends, new vs. existing protocols [Re: 4861 usage in LLNs]
X-BeenThere: 6lowapp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Application protocols for constrained nodes and networks <6lowapp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp>, <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowapp>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowapp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp>, <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:46:35 -0000

On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:53, Kris Pister wrote:

> +1 in favor of using optimized DHCP if possible (no opinion on 'if  
> possible'), rather than inventing something new.

I'm a big fan of not reinventing the wheel.
When what we need is a cup, however, we should not try to use wheels.
I have lots of experience with misappropriating protocols

Gruesse, Carsten

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status