Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart devices?

Adam Dunkels <adam@sics.se> Fri, 30 October 2009 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@sics.se>
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 D3A763A697D for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.805
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.805 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.444, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 3NJCzOeJkYil for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from letter.sics.se (letter.sics.se [193.10.64.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA613A6969 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.19] (unknown [10.1.1.19]) by letter.sics.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933AD4010C; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:04:11 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4AEB0065.7090108@sics.se>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:04:05 +0100
From: Adam Dunkels <adam@sics.se>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto)" <apezzuto@cisco.com>
References: <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC8E8644@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com> <D014365B-7E67-4A04-BE1C-4926A7923FF8@inf.ethz.ch> <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC8E8736@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC8E8736@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6lowapp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart devices?
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: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:03:56 -0000

Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto) wrote:
> Vlad,
> I know your work at the Web of Things and it's fine.
> On the other side, today we do not see many real 6lowpan devices able to support HTTP on TCP. SunSpot is fine but for 6lowpan we have 60-80 bytes of payload and 10kbps in application throughput to deal with.
> 
> It looks that HTTP on 6lowpan is a sort of "I wish but I cannot" and gatewaying/proxying is only a compromise not a solution. I'm try to find different points of view, so my initial question.

HTTP is quite lightweight and not a problem for constrained devices per 
se. See e.g. http://www.sics.se/~adam/yazar09efficient.pdf

That said, HTTP may not always be the perfect solution for everything, 
but it is definitely achievable.

/adam
-- 
Adam Dunkels <adam@sics.se>se>, +46707731614
http://twitter.com/adunk | http://www.sics.se/~adam/