Re: [6lowpan] WG adoption of draft-patil-6lowpan-v6over-btle-01.txt

Hi Pascal et al.

Yes, this is indeed correct. I have just submitted a draft for IPv6 adaptation layer over DECT Ultra Low Energy.
Comments much appreciated.
Best Regards,
Peter Mariager

From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com]
Sent: 6. april 2011 11:23
To: C Chauvenet; Carsten Bormann; Oliver Hahm
Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [6lowpan] WG adoption of draft-patil-6lowpan-v6over-btle-01.txt

Agreed.

Also, I've seen interest in IPv6 over DECT, with the advantage of an unlicensed band (mostly 1880 - 1900 MHz in Europe) that's dedicated to the technology.

Pascal
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7011357/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of C Chauvenet
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 10:45 AM
> To: Carsten Bormann; Oliver Hahm
> Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] WG adoption of draft-patil-6lowpan-v6over-btle-
> 01.txt
>
> Hi All,
>
> I definitely push the idea of a "generic IPv6 over low power foo" specification
> (if achievable).
> IPv6 may be used over various low power media, and if a generic adaptation
> layer can be designed, this may avoid to write a specification fo each low
> power media (exiting and to appear) that use IPv6.
> By the way, low power media cannot be restricted to wireless media. We
> also have to consider wired media (like low power PLC currentlty specified in
> IEEE P1901.2) as they shared many requirements with well known LoWPAN
> technologies.
>
> Cédric.
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] De la
> part de Carsten Bormann Envoyé : lundi 4 avril 2011 22:05 À : Oliver Hahm Cc :
> 6lowpan@ietf.org Objet : Re: [6lowpan] WG adoption of draft-patil-6lowpan-
> v6over-btle-01.txt
>
> On Apr 1, 2011, at 19:40, Oliver Hahm wrote:
>
> > Therefore, a more generic specification for IPv6 over low-power wireless
> foo would be really interesting for us - and probably a lot of other people as
> CC1020 and CC110x are very popular transceivers for WSN.
>
> I think that is an interesting idea.  How much of such a specification could be
> generic and how much would need to be specific to each of the radios?  Can
> you describe the decisions you had to take in applying 6LoWPAN to these
> radios?
>
> And, even better, can you write a draft?
>
> Gruesse, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan