Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart devices?
"Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto)" <apezzuto@cisco.com> Fri, 30 October 2009 15:57 UTC
Return-Path: <apezzuto@cisco.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 334A13A6783 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.600,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 iR-AKIINztaR for
<6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352FD3A6859 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>;
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com;
dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAG+p6kqrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbADJa5gthD0E
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,654,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="47427598"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com
with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2009 15:57:38 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71])
by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9UFvaH0011226;
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:57:39 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-106.cisco.com ([144.254.74.81]) by
xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:57:37 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:57:37 +0100
Message-ID: <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC8E87A0@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AEB0065.7090108@sics.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart devices?
Thread-Index: AcpZclG2vOYc9KutTAev/PbalFirRAABbC7w
References: <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC8E8644@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com> <D014365B-7E67-4A04-BE1C-4926A7923FF8@inf.ethz.ch>
<0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC8E8736@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com>
<4AEB0065.7090108@sics.se>
From: "Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto)" <apezzuto@cisco.com>
To: "Adam Dunkels" <adam@sics.se>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2009 15:57:37.0946 (UTC)
FILETIME=[B40287A0:01CA5979]
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 15:57:23 -0000
Thanks Adam, It's a very interested work. Regards, Adriano -----Original Message----- From: Adam Dunkels [mailto:adam@sics.se] Sent: venerdì 30 ottobre 2009 16.04 To: Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto) Cc: Vlad Trifa; d.sturek@att.net; 6lowapp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart devices? 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/
- [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart device… Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto)
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Vlad Trifa
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Don Sturek
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto)
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Adam Dunkels
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Adriano Pezzuto (apezzuto)
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Vlad Trifa
- Re: [6lowapp] Really we need for HTTP on smart de… Zach Shelby