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

Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com> Fri, 01 April 2011 12:18 UTC

Return-Path: <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF68E28C9BD for <6lowpan@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wj5gnyvVO5CP for <6lowpan@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail78.extendcp.co.uk (mail78.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.40.78]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD49028C753 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from client-86-29-238-141.pete.adsl.virginmedia.com ([86.29.238.141] helo=[192.168.1.80]) by mail78.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.73) id 1Q5dGQ-00060e-Ix for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:15:43 +0100
Message-ID: <4D95C1E9.1070901@gridmerge.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:15:37 +0100
From: Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>
Organization: Gridmerge Ltd.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 6lowpan@ietf.org
References: <C9BB1E4D.12A43%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> <4D95B9DF.3030309@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D95B9DF.3030309@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms060108050803070203040009"
X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] WG adoption of draft-patil-6lowpan-v6over-btle-01.txt
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:18:15 -0000

Alex,

RFC4944 and 6lowpan-hc form an adaptation layer between IPv6 and, 
currently, 802.15.4. To be clear:

BT BR/EDR is not 802.15.4
BT LE is not 802.15.4
BT BR/EDR is not BT LE (MAC or PHY)

So each MAC/PHY needs its own considerations when it comes to an 
adaptation layer. My feeling is that many concepts could be abstracted 
and maybe written in a common document but ultimately, there will be 
three different adaptation layers.

Also "bluetooth is to 802.15.4 what wifi is to 802.11" - completely 
wrong comparison. Bluetooth has nothing to do with 802.15.4.

Robert

On 01/04/2011 12:41 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Le 01/04/2011 13:16, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com a écrit :
>>
>> There is a world of difference between 802.15.4 and BT-LE.
>
> yes, but I mean from the standpoint of IP.
>
> Is the MAC address format different between bt and bt-le? (including
> format of multicast addresses)
>
> Is the bt-le mac still doing reassembly (as bt does) thus accept the
> same minimal mtu as bt, i.e.1280bytes?
>
> Is bt-le still a multicast-capable link layer, like bt is?
>
> Alex
>
>
>>
>> On 4/1/11 5:33 AM, "ext Alexandru
>> Petrescu"<alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> 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@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>