> Sooner or later, someone will figure out that we have no intention of > actually implementing IPv6 in wireless PANs
If this is the case there is hardly any point in developing IPv4 PAN at all. It should be IPv6 only as it was from the start. Peter --- "Timothy J. Salo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:54:28 -0500 (CDT) > > From: "Timothy J. Salo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [6lowpan] Working Group Charter > > > > ... I suggest replacing the first three paragraphs ... > > Oops, I forgot a paragraph. > > > - - - - - - > > > > IEEE 802.15.4 wireless personal-area networks, (wireless PANs), are > > dramatically different than the environments in which IP is > > traditionally deployed. > > [...] > > o In many markets, minimizing the cost of wireless PAN nodes > is critical. For example, the difference in cost between > 32 KB of ROM and 64 KB of ROM may make the difference between > a product that is competitive and one that is not. Of course, > this extra 32 KB of RAM will reduce the battery life of the > node, as well. > > - - - - - - > > Sooner or later, someone will figure out that we have no intention of > actually implementing IPv6 in wireless PANs, (e.g., mobile IP, IPsec, > a bunch of MIBs, etc.). We should be prepared to explain why. > > [Speaking of MIBs, will wireless PAN/IP gateways have MIBs?] > > -tjs > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
