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

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi,

When thinking about the solution for IPv6 over foo, the following issues are most important:

1. Link layer support for SAR
If SAR functionality is supported in the link layer and maximum MTU is large enough, separate adaptation layer is not needed in 6LoWpan. If SAR is not supported, then 6LoWpan adaptation layer is needed above PHY/Link layers.

2. Topology
Typically mesh or star topology. In a star topology not all 6LoWpan functionalities are required (e.g mesh headers).

3. Memory, power consumption and price
Different sensor technologies may have different optimization criteria. For some technologies e.g. low memory and power consumption as well as price can be a very critical factor. Thus adding new stack to the sensor might be undesirable - or at least low memory and power consumption are considered more important than advanced functionalities.

In principle, we could design a generic solution by classifying low power radios based on the above features. However, we are not aware of new radio technologies that may emerge. Since we don't know their possible limitations in the MAC/PHY layer it would be rather bold to claim that we have a solution for "low power IPv6 over foo". In my opinion it would be best to first pick some other radio that is not based on 802.15.4 (like Bluetooth Low Energy), specify the solution in the WG and if we still agree that requirements can be generalized at least for certain types of radios change the name of the draft or create another draft.

Johanna

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>Behalf Of ext Benjamin A. Rolfe
>Sent: 04 April, 2011 23:14
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [6lowpan] WG adoption of draft-patil-6lowpan-v6over-btle-
>01.txt
>
>Yes, a very interesting question!
>The three approved amendments define new PHY layers. All of the
>currently defined PHYs share a maximum PSDU size of 127.
>There are some added MAC features to support new PHY features but the
>basic MAC has not changed.
>Perhaps a more specific question is, what features of the PHYs and MAC
>does 6LoWPAN depend on to work?
>-B
>
>> On Apr 4, 2011, at 21:40, Benjamin A. Rolfe wrote:
>>
>>> P802.15.4-2006 alone is not the current standard: There are three
>approved amendments and so the current standard is P802.15.4-2006 plus
>the three amendments approved (P802.15.4a-2007, P802.15.4c-2009 and
>P802.15.4d-2009).  You need all 4 documents to know what is in the
>current standard.
>> So one interesting question would be -- does 6LoWPAN (RFC 4944 - HC1/2
>+ HC + ND) work with all these?
>>
>> Gruesse, Carsten
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>6lowpan mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan