Re: [lp-wan] Fwd: Review and proposed text for draft-minaburo-lp-wan-gap-analysis-01
Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 16 March 2016 20:24 UTC
Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7ED212D6E0 for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gas_pMEnTYCq for <lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78F7812D6B7 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id x1so26247949qkc.1 for <lp-wan@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rv9OiCDBEFT8ASZqUdp/H2zV6lQnUevEOV11QiwNfA8=; b=Nnyxz/TfWgvbjDoS+crB3VZ6lzmgstNt33ikjg3ryso624pOluJy6I1OqDeUu8zfgU mo7M2yr51M7gWh6uNH6tutDQMPQmrw64vN1tjlhg4oqfuxuTXS94N1b7tjsH0AIuKDdY qrW7wcIZ7HCLiPqsgGUFOxu55JJBObY0L23v5/bkTguItNYYhzXMqBb1ePs9E9+8SMK1 gt5K98cM1mOQ0Vh8RRbu0B/wmN2J7T11x+KjWDhd3UF/i4XBLVd2KDD6VDtTkLPap6x9 IlJSP3esjbmRK+/IwqhriTvDwt/BdwT2LkN3/Zn6Rn+WsPNpgjV5PCkKsMgNoah+rLTD E6VQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rv9OiCDBEFT8ASZqUdp/H2zV6lQnUevEOV11QiwNfA8=; b=lpKfm9ZgIQNiVpcsqcbkpKhAUTbvrgR6kcDEPRBs6Bve6mzHmReVocFb6d21xdvCQp gveI+X0+hQCjo4aoFjTElqhBYjgJkB9dUe1RpZHatMXJQm3DIYKnQpF6DYK0AeX+OrTP 4gQ65kdi5OH+kO2sW/zF+/5asWhdHrA63vrTq0AWrF/0v69aP8wHYrLLiLKOVYXOQ9y5 INWiCZUwUfWt276K8InrB/ieXpWhn6SBoQIjXBMJ61VUOnHB/VAexqWg0TdE37qeENDF SC7SABlQk19/b556hJwfVekLyt+MLhiY3WtLff7r5WjXuXXnP0fab+9UYK7r9wzzPb/I +LWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKIB8dk91B6OmQSvuHwuAKzqeWzdiXJ6s4IStUr11uS/N2NaJB79BHG6nIngHcLLfNgNll9IrzKRFQj2A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.221.18 with SMTP id n18mr8483766qki.50.1458159892424; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.55.26.65 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:24:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAccsvtyV3OBR8bXSjxXirWnPjggNLCJ-Q-v-PdEuAOFYSQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Ana Minaburo <ana@minaburo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/oyuyc-DNVEgOf60YW3ubwg_rdZ0>
Cc: lp-wan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lp-wan] Fwd: Review and proposed text for draft-minaburo-lp-wan-gap-analysis-01
X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" <lp-wan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lp-wan/>
List-Post: <mailto:lp-wan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:24:59 -0000
Hi Ana, I saw in your draft you mentioned NB-LTE in licensed channel as an LP-WAN technology. My question is if you included 3GPP M2M work like small data transmission enhancements in your GAP analysis. I think that there is work going on to define unlicensed spectrum LTE which should also be included among LP-WAN technologies. Regards, Behcet On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Ana Minaburo <ana@minaburo.com> wrote: > > Thank you very much for your comments, see my answers in the text > > Ana > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Carles Gomez Montenegro > <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Please find below a review with comments and suggested new text for >> draft-minaburo-lp-wan-gap-analysis-01. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Carles >> >> >> --------------------------- Start ------------------------------------ >> >> Network Working Group A. Minaburo >> Internet-Draft A. Pelov >> Intended status: Informational Acklio >> Expires: August 27, 2016 L. Toutain >> Institut MINES TELECOM ; TELECOM Bretagne >> February 24, 2016 >> >> >> LP-WAN GAP Analysis >> draft-minaburo-lp-wan-gap-analysis-01 >> >> Abstract >> >> Low Power Wide Area Networks (LP-WAN) are different technologies >> covering different applications based on long range, low bandwidth >> and low power operation. The use of IETF protocols in the LP-WAN >> technologies should contribute to the deployment of a wide number of >> applications in an open and standard environment where actual >> technologies will be able to communicate. This document makes a >> survey of the principal characteristics of these technologies and >> covers a cross layer analysis on how to adapt and use the actual IETF >> protocols, but also the gaps for the integration of the IETF protocol >> stack in the LP-WAN technologies. >> >> Status of This Memo >> >> This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the >> provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. >> >> Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering >> Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute >> working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- >> Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. >> >> Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months >> and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any >> time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference >> material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." >> >> This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2016. >> >> Copyright Notice >> >> Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the >> document authors. All rights reserved. >> >> This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal >> Provisions Relating to IETF Documents >> >> >> >> Minaburo, et al. Expires August 27, 2016 [Page 1] >> >> >> Internet-Draft LP-WAN GAP Analysis February 2016 >> >> >> (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of >> publication of this document. Please review these documents >> carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect >> to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must >> include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of >> the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as >> described in the Simplified BSD License. >> >> 1. Introduction >> >> LP-WAN (Low-Power Wide Area Network) technologies are a kind of >> constrained and challenged networks [RFC7228]. They can operate in >> >> licensed > > > (AM) We think it could create a confusion with the cellular networks > (3G,4G,5G technologies) that are licensed and that we do not want to be > included in the LP-WAN family. >> >> or >> license-exempt bands to provide connectivity to a vast number of >> battery-powered devices requiring limited communications. If the >> existing pilot deployments have shown the huge potential and the >> industrial interest in their capabilities, the loose coupling with >> the Internet makes the device management and network operation >> complex. More importantly, LP-WAN devices are, as of today, with no >> IP capabilities. The goal is to adapt IETF defined protocols, >> addressing schemes and naming spaces to this constrained environment. >> >> 2. Problem Statement >> >> The LP-WANs are large-scale constrained networks in the sense of >> [RFC7228] with the following characteristics: >> >> o very small frame payload as low as 12 bytes. Typical traffic >> patterns are composed of a large majority of frames with payload >> size around 15 bytes and a small minority of up to 100 byte >> frames. Some nodes will exchange less than 10 frames per day. >> >> o very low bandwidth, most LP-WAN technologies offer a throughput >> between 50 bit/s to 250 kbit/s, with a duty cycle of 0.1% to 10% >> on some ISM bands. >> >> o high packet loss, which can be the result of bad transmission >> conditions or collisions between nodes. >> >> o variable MTU for a link depending on the used L2 modulation. >> >> >> o in many cases, lack of L2 fragmentation. >> > (AM) Good point to be added > >> >> o highly asymmetric and in some cases unidirectional links. >> >> o ultra dense networks with thousands to tens of thousands of nodes. >> >> o different modulations and radio channels. >> >> o sleepy nodes to preserve energy. >> >> >> o typically, they define a star topology. >> >> > (AM) Here also, It is true that most of the actual topologies are star, but > this will quickly put many future possibilities out of the scope. The actual > use is in an star topology but we can think about new usage with another > topology >> >> >> >> Minaburo, et al. Expires August 27, 2016 [Page 2] >> >> >> Internet-Draft LP-WAN GAP Analysis February 2016 >> >> >> In the terminology of [RFC7228], these characteristics put LP-WANs >> into the "challenged network" category where the IP connectivity has >> to be redefined or modified. >> >> ------- >> Suggestion: >> >> In the terminology of [RFC7228], these characteristics put many LP-WAN >> technologies (and/or technology configurations) into the "challenged >> network" category where end-to-end connectivity requires the addition >> of >> new mechanisms to the existing ones. >> >> (Comment: note that in DTNs, IP connectivity is not modified per se; >> instead, additional mechanisms are added at upper layers.) > > > (AM) I think that in LP-WAN will be the same, the IP connectivity will not > be modified but we will use additional protocols or mechanisms in upper or > lower layers >> >> >> (Comment: some of the LP-WAN technologies, depending on how they are >> configured, e.g. the modulation used, do not actually fall in the >> challenged network category, but are probably still constrained networks.) >> > (AM) Of course modulation is variable so we can in some cases be only > constrained but this work is already the scope of other working groups as > 6lo or 6tisch and the objective is to do what is needed for challenged > network that cannot use 6lo or 6tisch technologies > >> >> ------- >> Therefore, LP-WANs need to be >> considered as a separate class of networks. >> >> (Comment: separate from what? Also, there are other types of challenged >> networks.) > > > (AM) Yes perhaps it is not clear. What we want to do is to assemble LP-WAN > technologies into a family or group or class of networks which has some > common characteristics and are challenged, and need some additional > mechanisms to have the IP connectivity >> >> >> Suggestion: >> >> Therefore, most LP-WANs may require specific solutions extending >> existing IETF mechanisms and/or defining new ones. > > > (AM) If we create a solution for each LP-WAN technology will not be simple, > it is better to crete a group of LP-WAN technologies that has common > characteristics and solve this problematic >> >> ------- >> >> The intrinsic >> characteristics, current usages and architectures will allow the >> group to make and justify the design choices. Some of the desired >> properties are: >> >> o keep compatibility with current Internet: >> >> * preserve the end-to-end communication principle. >> >> * maintain independence from L2 technology. >> >> * use or adapt protocols defined by IETF to this new environment >> that could be less responsive. >> >> * use existing addressing spaces and naming schemes defined by >> IETF. >> >> o ensure the correspondence with the stringent LP-WAN requirements, >> such as: >> >> * limited number of messages per device. >> >> * small message size, with potentially no L2 fragmentation. >> >> * RTTs potentially orders of magnitude bigger than existing >> constrained networks. >> >> o optimize the protocol stack in order to limit the number of >> duplicated functionalities; for instance acknowledgements should >> not be done at several layers. >> >> ------- >> >> (Comment: why? Sometimes, lower layer (e.g. link layer) reliability helps >> the (acknowledged) upper layers a lot… If both things may be of interest >> depending on the scenario/technology, it could be good to state it.) >> >> Suggestion: To minimize the number of messages to be exchanged, upper >> layer acknowledgments can be used. Nevertheless, if appropriately tuned, >> lower layer reliability may contribute to achieve a higher overall >> performance. A per-technology or per-scenario analysis is recommended. > > > (AM) Agree >> >> ------- >> >> >> 3. Identified gaps in current IETF groups concerning LP-WANs >> >> 3.1. IPv6 and LP-WAN >> >> IPv6 [RFC2460] has been designed to allocate addresses to all the >> nodes connected to the Internet. Nevertheless the 40 bytes of >> overhead introduced by the protocol are incompatible with the LP-WAN >> constraints. If IPv6 were used, several LP-WAN frames will be needed >> just to carry the header. >> >> ------- >> OLD: >> Another limitation comes from the MTU >> limit, which is 1280 bytes required from the layer 2 to carry IPv6 >> packet >> [RFC1981]. >> >> NEW: >> Another limitation comes from the MTU of 1280 bytes required by IPv6 >> [RFC2460]. > > > (AM) Good, thanks >> >> ------- >> >> Another limitation comes from the MTU >> limit, which is 1280 bytes required from the layer 2 to carry IPv6 >> packet [RFC1981]. This is a side effect of the PMTU discovery >> mechanism, which allows intermediary routers to send to the source an >> ICMP message (packet too big) to reduce the size. An attacker will >> be able to forget this message and reduce drastically the transmission >> >> (Comment: I think a reason for the IPv6 MTU requirement was the increase >> of link layer technologies capacity by the time (compared with the state >> of art when IPv4 was designed, where an MTU of 576 bytes was defined), and >> also to allow an efficiency increase.) >> > (AM) I can include this idea >> >> >> Minaburo, et al. Expires August 27, 2016 [Page 3] >> >> >> Internet-Draft LP-WAN GAP Analysis February 2016 >> >> >> performances. This limit allows to mitigate the impact of this >> attack. >> >> IPv6 needs a configuration protocol (neighbor discovery protocol, NDP >> [RFC4861]) to learn network parameters, and the node relation with >> its neighbor. This protocol generates a regular traffic with a large >> message size that does not fit LP-WAN constraints. >> >> 3.2. 6LoWPAN, 6lo and LP-WAN >> >> 6LoWPAN only resolves the IPv6 constraints by drastically reducing >> IPv6 overhead to about 4 bytes for ND traffic, >> >> (Comment: What are the 4 bytes this sentence refers to?) >> (Comment: 6LoWPAN comprises other important mechanisms, such as >> fragmentation.) >> >> but the header >> compression is not better for an end-to-end communications using >> global addresses (up to 20 bytes). >> >> (Comment: but down to 3 bytes using global addresses, in the best case.) >> >> 6LoWPAN has been initially >> designed for IEEE 802.15.4 networks with a frame size up to 127 bytes >> and a throughput of up to 250 kb/s with no duty cycle regarding the >> usage of the network. >> >> (Comment: 802.15.4 beacon-enabled mode is duty-cycled. Also channel >> sampling can be used, and is still duty cycled. 6LoWPAN can be used on top >> of both beacon and nonbeacon-enabled networks (RFC 4944).) >> >> IEEE 802.15.4 is a CSMA/CA protocol which means that every unicast >> frame is acknowledged. >> >> (Comment: No. 802.15.4 provides optional reliability. A bit in the header >> of a frame signals whether the frame requires an acknowledgment or not.) >> >> Because IEEE 802.15.4 has its own reliability >> mechanism by retransmission, 6LoWPAN does not have reliable delivery. >> >> (Comment: 6LoWPAN does not have reliable delivery because it just needs to >> adapt IPv6 (which does not have reliable delivery) over a link layer. >> Whatever happens below 6LoWPAN is a responsibility of the link layer, >> which may be reliable or not.) >> >> Some LP-WAN technologies do not provide such acknowledgements at L2 >> and would require other reliability mechanisms. >> >> NEW: >> A key 6LoWPAN component is fragmentation, which allows the transmission of >> IPv6 packets greater than the available payload in IEEE 802.15.4 (of 81 >> bytes in the worst case), and allows to fulfill the IPv6 MTU requirement. >> However, for example, in the LP-WAN technology called SIGFOX, which has an >> L2 MTU of 12 bytes and does not support L2 fragmentation, it is not >> possible to transmit large IPv6 packets by using RFC 4944 6LoWPAN >> fragmentation, since the 6LoWPAN fragmentation header consumes 5 bytes >> (4 bytes for the first fragment), leaving only 7 bytes of space for >> fragment data, while the offset of each fragment has to be expressed in >> increments of 8 octets. >> > (AM) ok > >> >> On the other hand, in L2 technologies with an L2 maximum payload size of >> 13 or more bytes, it will be possible to transmit any IPv6 packet by using >> 6LoWPAN fragmentation. However, a large overhead will be incurred, leading >> to a very high number of L2 data units per single IPv6 packet. >> >> An optimized, 3-byte 6LoWPAN fragmentation header has been defined in >> [draft-gomez-lpwan-fragmentation-header], exploiting LP-WAN >> characteristics. This fragmentation header enables the support of IPv6 >> packets over L2 payload sizes of even 4 bytes in the most extreme case, >> and reduces a significant amount of both L2 and adaptation layer overhead. > > >> >> 6lo extends the usage of 6LoWPAN to other technologies (BLE, DECT, >> ...), with similar characteristics to IEEE 802.15.4. The main >> constraint in these networks comes from the nature of the devices >> (constrained devices), whereas in LP-WANs it is the network itself >> that imposes the most stringent constraint. >> >> (Comment: The devices in 6lo and 6LoWPAN are constrained, but their >> networks are also constrained in terms of RFC 7228 (section 2.2). I would >> say that the difference between LP-WANs and 6LoWPAN is that many LP-WANs >> can be considered to be "challenged networks". Nevertheless, there is >> probably not a well-defined boundary between 6Lo(WPAN) and LP-WAN.) >> >> Neighbor Discovery has to be optimized by reducing the message size, >> the periodic exchanges and removing multicast message for point-to- >> point exchanges with border router. >> >> (Comment: Does this refer to IPv6 ND, or to 6LoWPAN ND? >> RFC 6775 removes multicast as much as possible. On the other hand, the >> registration lifetime can be of up to 1.5 months in 6LoWPAN ND.) >> >> >> 3.3. 6tisch and LP-WAN >> >> TODO >> >> Describe why 6tisch is complementary to LP-WAN >> >> A key element of 6tisch is the use of synchronization to enable >> determinism. An LP-WAN may or may not support synchronization like >> the one used in 6tisch. The 6tisch solution is dedicated to mesh >> networks that operate using 802.15.4e with a deterministic slotted >> channel. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Minaburo, et al. Expires August 27, 2016 [Page 4] >> >> >> Internet-Draft LP-WAN GAP Analysis February 2016 >> >> >> 3.4. ROLL and LP-WAN >> >> The LP-WANs considered by the WG are based on a star topology, which >> eliminates the need for routing. Future works may address additional >> use-cases which may require the adaptation of existing routing >> protocols or the definition of new ones. For the moment, the work >> done at the ROLL WG and other routing protocols are out of scope of >> the LP-WAN WG. >> >> 3.5. CORE and LP-WAN >> >> TODO >> >> CoRE provides a resource-oriented application intended to run on >> constrained IP networks. It may be necessary to adapt the protocols >> to take into account the duty cycling and the potentially extremely >> limited throughput. For example, some of the timers in CoAP may need >> to be redefined. >> >> NEW: >> For example, while the CoAP RTO timer is chosen randomly from the [2 s, 3 >> s] interval by default, the transmission time of the largest L2 data unit >> size, using the most robust modulation, is 6.82 s with LoRa, 9.6 s with >> SIGFOX, and 85 s with IEEE 802.15.4k LECIM. >> >> Taking into account CoAP acknowledgements may allow >> the reduction of L2 acknowledgements. >> >> 3.6. Security and LP-WAN >> >> ToDo >> >> 3.7. Mobility and LP-WAN >> >> TODO >> >> LP-WAN nodes can be mobile. However, LP-WAN mobility is different >> than the one studied in the context of Mobile IP. LP-WAN implies >> sporadic traffic and will rarely be used for high-frequency, real- >> time communications. >> >> 4. Annex A -- survey of LP-WAN technologies >> >> Different technologies can be included under the LP-WAN acronym. The >> following list is the result of a survey among the first participant >> to the mailing-list. It cannot be exhaustive but is representative >> of the current trends. >> >> Minaburo, et al. Expires August 27, 2016 [Page 5] >> >> >> Internet-Draft LP-WAN GAP Analysis February 2016 >> >> >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> |Technology |range | Throughput |MAC MTU | >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> |LoRa |2-5 km urban |0.3 to 50 kbps|256 B | >> | |<15 km suburban| | | >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> |SIGFOX |10 km urban |100 bps |12 B | >> | |50 km rural | | | >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> >> (Comment: I have a SIGFOX flyer (date July 2012) which states a range >> between 10 bit/s and 1 kbit/s.) >> >> |IEEE802.15.4k| < 20 km LoS |1.5 bps to |16/24/ | >> |LECIM | < 5 km NoLoS | 128 kbps | 32 B | >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> |IEEE802.15.4g| 2-3 km LoS | 4.8 kbps to |2047 B | >> |SUN | |800 kbps | | >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> |RPMA | 65 km LoS | up: 624kbps |64 B | >> | | 20 km NoLoS |down: 156kbps | | >> | | | mob: 2kbps | | >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> |DASH-7 | 2 km | 9 kbps |256 B | >> | | | 55.55 kbps | | >> | | | 166.66 kbps | | >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> |Weightless-w | 5 km urban | 1 kbps to |min 10 B| >> | | | 10 Mbps | | >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> |Weightless-n |<5 km urban | 30 kbps to |max 20 B| >> | |<30 km suburban| 100kbps | | >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> |Weightless-p |> 2 km urban | up to 100kbps| | >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> |NB-LTE |< 15 km | < 150 kbps | < 200 B| >> +-------------+---------------+--------------+--------+ >> >> Figure 1: Survey of LP-WAN technologies >> >> The table Figure 1 gives some key performance parameters for some >> candidate technologies. The maximum MTU size must be taken >> carefully, for instance in LoRa, it take up to 2 sec to send a 50 >> Byte frame using the most robust modulation. In that case the >> theoretical limit of 256 B will be impossible to reach. >> >> Most of the technologies listed in the Annex A work in the ISM band >> and may be used for private a public networks. Weightless-W uses >> white spaces in the TV spectrum and NB-LTE will use licensed >> channels. Some technologies include encryption at layer 2. >> >> >> >> >> >> Minaburo, et al. Expires August 27, 2016 [Page 6] >> >> >> Internet-Draft LP-WAN GAP Analysis February 2016 >> >> >> 5. Acknowledgements >> >> Thanks you very much for the discussion and feedback on the LP-WAN >> mailing list, namely, Pascal Thubert, Carles Gomez, Samita >> Chakrabarti, Xavier Vilajosana, Misha Dohler, Florian Meier, Timothy >> J. Salo, Michael Richardson, Robert Cragie, Paul Duffy, Pat Kinney, >> Joaquin Cabezas and Bill Gage. >> >> 6. Normative References >> >> [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery >> for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August >> 1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>. >> >> [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 >> (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, >> December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>. >> >> [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, >> "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, >> DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, >> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. >> >> [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for >> Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, >> DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, >> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>. >> >> Authors' Addresses >> >> Ana Minaburo >> Acklio >> 2bis rue de la Chataigneraie >> 35510 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex >> France >> >> Email: ana@ackl.io >> >> >> Alexander Pelov >> Acklio >> 2bis rue de la Chataigneraie >> 35510 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex >> France >> >> Email: a@ackl.io >> >> >> >> >> >> Minaburo, et al. Expires August 27, 2016 [Page 7] >> >> >> Internet-Draft LP-WAN GAP Analysis February 2016 >> >> >> Laurent Toutain >> Institut MINES TELECOM ; TELECOM Bretagne >> 2 rue de la Chataigneraie >> CS 17607 >> 35576 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex >> France >> >> Email: Laurent.Toutain@telecom-bretagne.eu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Minaburo, et al. Expires August 27, 2016 [Page 8] >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lp-wan mailing list >> lp-wan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan > > > > > _______________________________________________ > lp-wan mailing list > lp-wan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan >
- [lp-wan] Review and proposed text for draft-minab… Carles Gomez Montenegro
- [lp-wan] Fwd: Review and proposed text for draft-… Ana Minaburo
- Re: [lp-wan] Fwd: Review and proposed text for dr… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [lp-wan] Review and proposed text fordraft-mi… weigengyu
- Re: [lp-wan] Fwd: Review and proposed text for dr… Carles Gomez Montenegro
- Re: [lp-wan] Fwd: Review and proposed text for dr… weigengyu
- Re: [lp-wan] Fwd: Review and proposed text for dr… Eric Hamel (ehamel)