IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com> Tue, 10 November 2009 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <richard.kelsey@ember.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 2B18E28C233; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:15:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 LHxQ2AlfhG-w; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:15:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EMPIRE.hq.ember.com (mail.ember.com [74.10.175.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C79A28C227; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:15:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com ([192.168.81.60]) by EMPIRE.hq.ember.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:17:43 -0500
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:13:04 -0500
Message-Id: <87eio62cu7.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com>
To: Kris Pister <pister@eecs.berkeley.edu>
In-reply-to: <4AF9BB54.7070006@eecs.berkeley.edu> (message from Kris Pister on Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:13:24 -0800)
From: Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com>
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> <05C6A38D732F1144A8C4016BA4416BFE0242D3B1@SPO-EXVS-02.itron.com> <4AF90433.30204@eecs.berkeley.edu> <87639il2fh.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com> <4AF9BB54.7070006@eecs.berkeley.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2009 23:17:43.0646 (UTC) FILETIME=[0193D7E0:01CA625C]
Cc: Michael.Stuber@itron.com, 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 23:15:51 -0000

   Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:13:24 -0800
   From: Kris Pister <pister@eecs.berkeley.edu>

   I think that today's things are being designed with
   wonderful chips like your Ember EM351 and EM357 which
   have 128kB and 192kB of flash and lots of RAM; like the
   Jennic JN5148, the Freescale MC13224, the Dust DN2510.
   They can run IP, they will run IP, and in many cases they
   do run IP.

Kris,

Their wonderfulness aside, those chips are not what the
6lowpan charter describes.  Yes, I agree that rechartering
for bigger platforms would make our job easier, and could
reduce the number of new protocols needed.  I am not arguing
for or against it, just asking you if you are proposing that
we amend the charter.  If not, then we should use the specs 
that it has.
                            -Richard Kelsey

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