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

Alexandru Petrescu <> Sat, 02 April 2011 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EC928C122 for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 08:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.323
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j+iE1vEXuhAV for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 08:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC07728C0E7 for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 08:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15599401E5 for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:40:57 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:40:55 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv: Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110402-0, 02/04/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] WG adoption of draft-patil-6lowpan-v6over-btle-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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, 02 Apr 2011 15:39:24 -0000

Thanks for clarification,

Le 02/04/2011 17:05, Benjamin A. Rolfe a écrit :
> To further clarify: 802.15.1 is the IEEE standard base standard for
> Bluetooth. If you had said 802.15.1 is to Bluetooth SIG as 802.11 is
>  to WiFi Alliance you would be more correct.

Ok, 802.15.1 is to Bluetooth SIG as 802.11 is to WiFi Alliance.

> 802.15.4 was developed for very different applications and physical
> environments than Bluetooth. They are completely different standards.
> 802.14[5?].1 and 802.15.4 are significantly different MACs, and
> 802.15.4 includes multiple PHY technologies.


IMHO BT-LE and 802.15.4 compete in the same application and
physical environment.

> The latest revision (802.15.4-2011) includes the 3 PHY amendments
> approved since 2006, bringing the total of distinct PHYs to 6, with
> multiple banding options within some PHY specifications, all under a
>  single, common MAC.

Ok, I wonder what that MAC is.

> There are at least 5 current task groups working on or finishing up
> further amendments. It has become the most popular downloaded
> standard in the 802 family and has been applied to a large variety of
> very different applications.

Aha, 802.15.4-2011 is a popular download; but I cant find, sorry; by
vote count here, it seems BT-LE is popular as well and I _can_ find the
BT-LE specs.

> Of course Bluetooth (802.15.1) has deployed in billions of devices
> and continues to be included in nearly all consumer devices. It is
> optimized for short physical range, small networks (piconets), low
> energy consumption, and high density of simultaneously operating
> piconets. Most implementations limit TX power and optimize for a
> range of a couple meters or less.

Do you mean that BT is more adapted in more constrained
environments than 802.15.4?

For the range in meters, I read at the 6LoWPAN WG meeting slides that
BT-LE does 50-100meter.

Do you know whether 802.15.4-2011 doc refers to the use of the lowpan
adaptation layer (section 5 of rfc4944)?  Or does it simply say IPv6
(like RFC2460 or so)? I can't find the 802.15.4-2011 document.



> Hope that clarification helps.
>> There is a world of difference between 802.15.4 and BT-LE.
>> On 4/1/11 5:33 AM, "ext Alexandru
>> Petrescu"<> wrote:
>>> Le 01/04/2011 12:12, Carsten Bormann a écrit :
>>>>> It seems to me IMHO bt-le is just a new phy, but same mac,
>>>>> hence ip would not be affected.
>>>> From the presentation, I had a different impression.
>>>>> But of course, a document stating we do things over bt-le as
>>>>> usually as over bt, would not hurt.
>>>> Actually, it is required, as RFC4944 and its updates only
>>>> define 6LoWPAN for IEEE 802.15.4. If two people took these
>>>> documents and tried to apply them to BT-LE, they wouldn't
>>>> necessarily arrive at interoperable specifications.
>>> To me IMHO bluetooth is to 802.15.4 what wifi is to 802.11 - a
>>> marketing name. It seems sufficient to specify ipv6 over 802.15.4
>>> and that would cover all variants of bluetooth. There is no
>>> ipv6-over-802.11n, nor ipv6-over-wifilowpower, for example.
>>> I may be wrong though about bluetooth being mostly 802.15.4
>>> rfc4944 and rfc2460.
>>>>> Is the WG re-opened?
>>>> No, it is alive and well until such a time when it is actually
>>>>  being closed. All that was said is that the Prague meeting
>>>> will be the last physical meeting of the WG. We want to close
>>>> our unfinished business, and a number of documents are based on
>>>>  discussions that went on at least since Beijing, so if they
>>>> fit our charter and we have energy to work on them, there is no
>>>>  problem doing that.
>>> sounds like doing new work without physical meetings... ok...
>>> Alex
>>>> Gruesse, Carsten
>>> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing
>>> list
>> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing
>> list
> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list