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

[C Chauvenet <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten, 

Working on Low Power, low data rate PLC, we find that the IEEE 802.15.4 specification targeted the same application and gather the same requirements (Small computation capabilities, Low Power, low data rate etc..).
So we adapted the IEEE 802.15.4 frame format over PLC.
(This is also because a low power and low data rate standard for narrow band PLC such as ongoing specification in P1901.2 don't exist yet at this time)

As a result, It does not hurt the 6loWPAN spec at all, and can be used as is.
Our PHY layer is proprietary (until the standard comes out) but use the 802.15.4 standard frame format.
All layers above are compliant with the classical 802.15.4/6LoWPAN/IPv6 stack.

I would enjoy to hear what other people use, and evaluate the diversity around IPv6 adaptation layers.

Best,
Cédric.


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Carsten Bormann [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Envoyé : mercredi 6 avril 2011 12:05
À : C Chauvenet
Cc : Oliver Hahm; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [6lowpan] WG adoption of draft-patil-6lowpan-v6over-btle-01.txt

On Apr 6, 2011, at 10:45, C Chauvenet wrote:

> I definitely push the idea of a "generic IPv6 over low power foo" specification (if achievable).

That is my point -- if there is a way to do this in a reusable, mostly generic fashion, this would be great.
I'm assuming there generally always will need to be some shim -- e.g., if the PHY/MAC spec already has a multiplexing point, how to hook into that, and possibly some other radio parameters that need to be set the same on both sides for interoperability.
That's why I was looking for some input from people who have done work on the constrained networks we are talking about.
Please write a (short) draft, or (alternatively) give me a few paragraphs that could for example go into the 6LoWPAN roadmap document until there is critical mass for a separate spec.

Gruesse, Carsten