Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF

["Don Sturek" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jonathan,

Most utilities already have Data Aggregators in their network.  Those are
typically used in the neighborhood area network where collections of meters
are interfaced to the utility back office.  One example of this is Outage
notification.    Having a few meters tell you there is an outage is fine,
having all of the meters in Los Angeles tell you the power went out is not
helpful.......

Don


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hui [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:09 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: 'Carsten Bormann'; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Proposed charter for 6LoWAPP BOF


Hi Don,

On Oct 30, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Don Sturek wrote:

> It would be good to avoid PEPs as much as possible.   These devices  
> are
> controversial in cost constrained deployments since they imply a  
> standalone
> box someplace (that the customer does not get benefit from  
> functionally) or
> some translation which eventually is outdated.

It seems that the desire to avoid the use of translation proxies/ 
gateways in SE 2 is driven by both business and technical reasons, is  
this accurate?  (Security may be another good reason to avoid the use  
of translation proxies/gateways).

Do you see value in a back-end service for SE 2 that can centrally  
buffer/store data from, accept and schedule requests to, and offer the  
data/node capabilities of large numbers of LLN devices in an  
aggregated and structured manner using one or more standard  
interfaces?  Such a service is not a proxy and also not really a  
gateway.  This is more of what I was envisioning that the PEP should  
really be, and the terms PEP and gateway do not capture that well.

--
Jonathan Hui