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

Specially with respect to energy management, I don't think anyone is
suggesting IP doesn't fit the bill today. Rather, to the contrary, many
including myself, find it less clear if it's really necessary to redefine
everything proposed to meet today's use cases. I'm not saying it's not, but
just that it needs more careful analysis.

What Kris is saying on the state of current technology and where it is
headed, unlike some of the opposing arguments I've witnessed in this group,
is very clear and understandable to me. I think what would alleviate
everyones concerns, are equally clear arguments based on numbers, facts and
use cases as to why we need an overhaul of everything.

---
Shidan Gouran

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Richard Kelsey
<richard.kelsey@ember.com>wrote:

>   Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:12:03 -0800
>   From: Kris Pister <pister@eecs.berkeley.edu>
>
>    > Abandoning the installed base just goes to reinforce the idea
>    > that IP isn't an appropriate technology for things.
>
>   Michael - I think that we have the same goal, but I disagree with that
>   statement.  I think that re-writing every protocol from discovery
>   through transport to applications, from scratch, is what reinforces the
>   idea that IP isn't an appropriate technology for things.
>
>   I realize that there are pressures from an installed base, but at this
>   point it's a tiny fraction of the overall potential.  If we let the 1%
>   installed base dictate the path for the next 99%, we should do our best
>   to ensure that it's the right path.
>
> Taking these two paragraphs together, you seem to be saying
> that IP is an appropriate technology for tomorrow's things,
> but not necessarily for today's.  While the hardware will
> obviously improve over time, we still need to pick some
> target platform.  The current 6lowpan charter gives 32K of
> flash as an example and mentions 802.15.4 repeatedly.  Are
> you suggesting that we recharter?
>
> The increasing capabilities of the hardware does give us the
> reassuring prospect that the longer we take the solve the
> problems the easier it will be to so.
>
>                                -Richard Kelsey
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowapp mailing list
> 6lowapp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
>