Re: [RSN] Update

JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Wed, 06 June 2007 11:59 UTC

Return-path: <rsn-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvuAV-00030t-KZ; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:59:15 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvuAU-00030n-MK for rsn@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:59:14 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvuAU-0005VA-D0 for rsn@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:59:14 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2007 07:59:14 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,389,1175486400"; d="scan'208"; a="62083483:sNHT51210982"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l56BxE86006026; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:59:14 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l56BxD5f019032; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:59:13 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:59:13 -0400
Received: from [10.86.104.179] ([10.86.104.179]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:59:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <6D9687E95918C04A8B30A7D6DA805A3E77B2D1@zensys17.zensys.local>
References: <023E7560-E91C-4805-9EA0-90F8EA3874EA@cisco.com><46632986.3000401@saloits.com> <46632FB9.6080705@cisco.com> <4664D24E.2000803@saloits.com> <6D9687E95918C04A8B30A7D6DA805A3E77B2D1@zensys17.zensys.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <D291504E-9D23-4D2A-B5D5-A88976104AE4@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [RSN] Update
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:58:53 -0400
To: Anders Brandt <abr@zen-sys.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2007 11:59:12.0794 (UTC) FILETIME=[1932CFA0:01C7A832]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2435; t=1181131154; x=1181995154; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[RSN]=20Update |Sender:=20 |To:=20Anders=20Brandt=20<abr@zen-sys.com>; bh=OAdHdgzpPdSpZLtI7gYmzRax/KU7Oi7oEufYYuoEbQg=; b=WN50UJxwJeK2t0rwSM5fnM2WGqfepUw/LPJh9TNQqAjnZrwadDx9flH4yfn5lE1g/unE33T1 2Q1DcXly1UcA2ZNQHOdaAuDSo/EZ5SMAatKcyZsPCDuIFPCBG/pw+KhC;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5
Cc: rsn@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rsn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Sensor Networks <rsn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn>, <mailto:rsn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rsn>
List-Post: <mailto:rsn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rsn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn>, <mailto:rsn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rsn-bounces@ietf.org

On Jun 6, 2007, at 4:19 AM, Anders Brandt wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy J. Salo [mailto:salo@saloits.com]
> Sent: 5. juni 2007 05:03
>
>> (e.g., some nodes may sleep much of the time;
>
> ...
>
>>  Should some nodes, such as power-rich or gateway nodes, act as
>>  proxies (for some functions) for power constrained node?
>
> ...
>
>>  - Should a link/subnet use both MAC addresses and network-addresses,
>      or should only a single set of addresses be used for both  
> purposes?
>
> Operating nodes running on small batteries in very low bandwidth
> environments
> is at the heart of this initiative.
>
> While awareness of sleeping nodes and the use of certain nodes as
> proxies
> is very much inside the scope of this group,

Absolutely.

> I am a bit uncertain
> whether
> header and/or data compression is relevant on the routing layer.
> It might be specific to the individual L2 implementations?
>

Header compression is clearly handled by 6lowpan. As far as data  
compression/fusion/..., if the technique and potential protocol
extensions are within the scope of 6lowpan, the knowledge of some  
node capabilities may be used to route the traffic and are
consequently part of RL2N. Again, a simple line of demarcation.

JP.

> Concerning the proxy node topic, there are (at least) two  
> situations to
> consider:
>
> A: Certain transmission mechanisms are asymmetrical, so that  
> sending to
> a 99% sleeping
> requires a transmission activity from the sending part than from the
> node waking up a
> short while to detect traffic. This case may be considered a
> _POWER_PROXY_.
> Latency for the node response may not be higher than a few 100
> milliseconds.
>
> B: Water sensing nodes and other nodes may wake up extremely  
> rarely, say
> every 5 minutes.
> They send a measurement report to a local proxy, that confirms the
> receival.
> Then the node goes back to sleep for the next 5 minutes.
> The only way to change settings, e.g. the measument interval or the
> target proxy
> for such a node, is to provide a mailbox service, where  
> instructions are
> queued up,
> waiting for the next time, the node makes contact.
> We could call this a _TIME_PROXY_.
>
> Anders Brandt
>
> _______________________________________________
> RSN mailing list
> RSN@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn

_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
RSN@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn