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

Hi Kris,

Prior to all of the wireless work I have done in the past 10 years, I worked
at a specialty edge router company.  We worked in large data centers
migrating serial protocols (bisync, X.25, etc.) to IP.  This work did
actually require new IETF protocols and extensions (MPLS, reliable
multicast, etc).   

I think for 6LowPAN to proliferate, we need to partially do what you suggest
(limit where possible creating new protocols) but augment existing IETF
standards as well.  I really see the CoRE work aligning with that vision
since we are mapping it to a RESTfull HTTP deployment which has precedence
in current web services.  Having CoRE re-use existing transports and
security is critical

There was one thing missing from your note on new hardware:  cost.
Lowering the bar on cost with CoRE will allow the technology to be deployed
in places where new ARM processors with 192K flash/etc are too expensive.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Kris Pister
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:13 AM
To: Richard Kelsey
Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org; 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] hardware trends, new vs. existing protocols [Re: 4861
usage in LLNs]

Richard -
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.  We 
all agree on that, and we're all excited about that. 
The debate centers on how many new protocols we need to invent, vs. how 
many we can adopt or adapt, with the existing hardware, and with an eye 
toward where technology trends are taking us.  My concern, like yours, 
is over the rate of adoption.  If the fastest path to broad adoption is 
to create new protocols for routing, ND, transport, and applications, 
then by all means let's do that.  I'm concerned, however, that this has 
not been a uniformly successful approach for wireless sensor networks in 
the past. :)
Many of us believe that we will see the fastest adoption by minimizing 
the number of new protocols.  We might be wrong, and that's the debate.

ksjp

Richard Kelsey 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
>   
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan