Dear Alexander, Thanks for your responses.
To some extent, I see similarities between the environment you are considering (CAN) and MS/TP. Few years ago, the 6Lo WG produced RFC 8163, which specifies IPv6 over MS/TP. I understand that using header compression reduces the amount of IPv6 packets that will require fragmentation. Also, it provides a more efficient use of the bus. Interesting! Cheers, Carles > Dear Carles, > > On 17.10.19 18:16, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote: > > > Thanks for your new Internet Draft submission! > Thanks for the quick feedback. > > > I have a few clarifying questions: > > > > - What type of power sources can we expect for CAN devices? > > They are usually mains-powered. In the automotive domain, it could be > that nodes are battery-powered, but the battery is not a constraining > factor. > > > - What bit rate/rates is/are typical in CAN? > > The bit rate depends on the used cables, cable length, environment, ... > 125 kbaud should work for long lines, 1 Mbaud for classic CAN and short > lines, and up to 8 Mbaud for CAN-FD. > > > - What kind of errors (e.g. due to BER) can we expect? Would CAN be > > categorized as a lossy technology, or rather as a very low error rate > > technology (e.g. Ethernet-like)? > > Bit errors may occur, but that heavily depends on the wiring and > environment. Usually, we can expect a low BER [1]. Errors during > transmission are detected, and the frame is retransmitted automatically. > All nodes have an error counter and disconnect from the bus when the > counter exceeds the limit. The bus is hard-wired, and nodes do not > disappear. > > Kind regards, > Alexander > > [1] > https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c16e/1c68ddfe5e525d3e4cc9c3478250f5ad36df.pdf > > -- > Alexander Wachter, BSc > > Student of Information and Computer Engineering > Graz University of Technology _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
