Re: [6lowpan] IP over Narrowband Radios

Abdussalam Baryun <> Sat, 30 June 2012 05:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8568021F86F6; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.49
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d9NIs0Hr1Yvv; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7BDB21F86F5; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so2987890vbb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=OfHS+z2+tUjYmdWSKs9nSMpFfeBDh8aA4YMCb1I1u5E=; b=Zfnp3gLlH4tOEkG4OqKXmCPVDoDiYo6PFPJ3ZMV/5ZZmUmkoK75RVGkrY7pMkaJ8Yn dlyZ4cRbPHlXgQToUHikyXNS3huK+3QqKzndVlKCfO8TXOUjRDt+myQ75U24kYzOmZwd MHKDCUhDRZshChaRwMDahCE84XSUE+sAxFllD5CQg9jsFqqHEDxc70U9aayKDMoWp2oN VX231mQb3eaVZBDdtllSogzcPFPjx0YtynDg2sdEFTcNXJQbNVF14edzf1STHjQRUwe0 tUkW2V1/kr4uGn4Mc+daWSnHu7Z91rr0gJp7S6Twoz7RTjbmQ0J4FBZG+hD3B51Vey3W Q7wQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id cz4mr2022817vdb.10.1341033281145; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 07:14:40 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
To: "Timothy J. Salo" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: roll <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] IP over Narrowband Radios
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:14:43 -0000

Hi Tim,

I agree with you in the design issues, but think that your proposal is
more suitable/applicable for ROLL WG not in 6LoWPAN WG, because this
WG is more about WPAN. However, it is an interesting to see your
work/proposal in a draft I-D. I have not worked on your topic but
understand that the engineering comparison of short range and large
range may not be correct by excluding network complexity and cost.

In particular, I think you need to be sure that the layer 1 (Radio) is
defined and specified, I recommend that layer 2 (L2) to be a standard
(e.g. IEEE, ITU, or other standards ORG). Then in the I-D you propose
standard of IP over (L2 of VHF/UHF Radio) similar to 6Lowpan I-Ds,
but I don't think we can standard L2 in IETF if it is not existed and
used in the Internet.

I may be wrong, if so please reply,


On 6/30/12, Timothy J. Salo <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Is anyone looking at running IP over narrowband very high frequency
> (VHF) and ultra high frequency (UHF) data radios?  A couple of major
> issues come to mind.
> First, bandwidth is extremely limited and valuable.  These radios may
> provide bandwidths of only 9,600 bits-per-second (bps), 4,800 bps, or
> even less.  Networks composed of these radios might be viewed as
> _wide-area_ wireless sensor networks (WSNs) (in contrast to the
> "local-area" WSNs typically built with 6lowpan devices).  Link
> distances in these narrowband networks may be kilometers or even
> tens-of-kilometers long.  The narrowband radios used in these networks
> may transmit with one to five watts of power.  In my view, the
> extremely low bandwidths of these networks, combined with the very high
> energy cost of transmitting a bit, is likely to drive different
> engineering tradeoffs in protocol design (compared to 802.15.4
> networks, where link bandwidths are relatively high and the cost of
> transmitting a bit is relatively low).  For example, in a narrowband
> network, it may make much more sense to compute or store information
> whenever possible, rather than transmitting it (more than one) over
> the air.  While I have not yet done the analysis, it seems to me that
> it is quite likely that the engineering tradeoffs make in 6lowpan are
> different than the engineering tradeoffs that might be made in a
> narrowband radio network.  Perhaps, there is utility in a collection of
> IP-over-narrowband-radio RFCs.
> Second, there is a pretty complete lack of standards for narrowband
> data radios, most importantly at the physical and MAC layers.  While
> this topic is outside of the purview of the IETF, it is a serious
> impediment to building interoperable products.  It might also complicate
> the process of standardizing IP-over-narrowband-radio specifications.
> -tjs
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list