IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lowapp] the role of gateway nodes

Arjun Roychowdhury <arjun.lists@hsc.com> Fri, 04 December 2009 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <arjunrc@gmail.com>
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 C456E3A6892 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:57:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 fGHZI02g7qUy for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:57:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD373A6810 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:57:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 9so562332qwb.31 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:57:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:reply-to:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=xCnXWsDW2kbd8eEc2jL450Vxp8397mvp3vXlva+X5qY=; b=VJacGb0lPSlTlSucuz7Dt6jw4utegNmudixUyUFqo8W2Fjjl9gOjFb7dI4Rvh2cb6c pK8f/haZ4bi6uWn7RlXIPR73mCBnxj3TRTKSdduNgLJGmqJtOR8kwI70foQ5cBk0bZ4r WTZ3ZHEEoMGND92g0wci6mZgWVdeCmr78Fj2g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=iICO2A9wGTpCqvSDD/pJE7KokwBG3UBSnUDEcp/6KTsHBsAQUFPC4GJKfS/2K0xT8+ hLN9UomvnKdgp7dV6TvGE3YCfX2P4TpTNRqahbFHEVn+e9Rx74WSE9JEsXmPBT91Z/Ro RS7++f1CgRE84ghHcKCv9rqFX0Ptub543LV9E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: arjunrc@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.113.96 with SMTP id z32mr1990864qap.112.1259960238096; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:57:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D52720BD-AC94-499C-81B0-875665FA971D@tzi.org>
References: <1220434074.5410511259332678903.JavaMail.root@polinya> <D52720BD-AC94-499C-81B0-875665FA971D@tzi.org>
From: Arjun Roychowdhury <arjun.lists@hsc.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:56:58 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 05ad673786b7fe4e
Message-ID: <a9994e940912041256m3b96da57mf4f695043bd7e74@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f99e4d76c42f90479ed5a44
Cc: "6lowapp@ietf.org" <6lowapp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] the role of gateway nodes
X-BeenThere: 6lowapp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: arjun.lists@hsc.com
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:57:30 -0000

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> On Nov 27, 2009, at 15:37, Xavi Vilajosana Guillen wrote:
>
> > what's the approach at 6LowApp? anyone knows ongoing work on that issue?
>
> I would summarize the thinking that went into the BOF as follows:
>
> Some nodes in a CE (constrained environment) may actually be not that
> constrained (as nodes and with respect to their network).  These can
> directly speak the appropriate application protocol (HTTP, SNMP, XMPP, SIP)
> to some correspondent node outside (or inside) the CE.  (We didn't put this
> on the slides because that is nothing new.)
>

ARC> This may be just my opinion but I think thats an important point to put
in even if its not new. To some of us, the assertions being made in the
group about network bandwidth and device constrained are not coupled with
concrete proof and makes us wonder why such stringent constraints are being
laid out. It goes back to Henning Schulzrinne's points made in these
threads:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowapp/current/msg00266.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowapp/current/msg00257.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowapp/current/msg00215.html

If this group were to make this classification clear that there will be
devices that adhere to stringent needs and those that can accommodate richer
protocols, even in what is called a 'LowPAN' network, then it completes the
story better.




> --

Arjun Roychowdhury

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email