Re: [coman] Device Classes?

Hannes,

I would really like a solution which allows monitoring and management of C1
devices [1]. If built around protocols which have been designed for these
types of devices (e.g. CoAP), I don't believe adding this functionality to
a node will have a large impact on code footprint.

What do others think?

Thomas

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-terminology-07#section-3

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:

> A question out of curiosity:
>
> The LWIG terminology document defines classes of devices and makes
> statements about what can and cannot be done for each class.
>
> IMHO these classes are about end devices rather than constrained routers
> and switches. Guys in the network management environment seem to care a
> lot about the management of network nodes.
>
> What are the expectations about RAM, flash size, CPU requirements, etc.
> for these constrained routers/switches?
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> coman mailing list
> coman@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman
>
>