yo... have you solved the power problem? small, (nearly) always on for three/five years is a tough nut to crack. tried it at least three different times in the past 10 years. kind of doable w/ active RFIDs but the life expectancy is much shorter.
--bill On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:00:39AM -0700, Peter Sherbin wrote: > > clarify. However, as Timo said, the requirements should come from the > > industry, they should be real problems to be solved, so far we are not > > seeing this. > > Here is an industry input. I am working on a case where I need 10M - 100M > mobile > sensors size of 1/10 of a penny spread accross North America to provide > updates > every 10 min on their location / physical status for the duration of three - > five > years. All of them must have full length IPv6 addresses. > > When should I expect the solution from this WG? > > Peter > > --- Behcet Sarikaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I do not think it is the question of whether or not IPv6 can be > > implemented, the answer is of course it can be. Even IPsec/ MIPv6 can > > implemented as Phil said. From IP point of view this is another L2, and > > that's where I would like to comment. > > It seems that there is a fundamental problem in forming WGs on > > specific link layers, we have 6lowpan and 16ng as examples. In the past > > this was not followed, e.g. we did not have 3G related WGs although 3G > > has had much bigger impact. > > The question we should ask is what is the model to follow in 6lowpan? > > This seems to be not well defined so far and the discussions can help it > > clarify. However, as Timo said, the requirements should come from the > > industry, they should be real problems to be solved, so far we are not > > seeing this. > > As an example of the model, for example, for 16ng, we have WiMAX and > > to a lesser extent IEEE 802.16 that produce the requirements for any > > IETF standardization. WiMAX is taking the link spec from IEEE and > > defining a full-fledged cellular network using this link. > > We might probably need to define what a sensor network is and then > > derive the requirements for 6lowpan WG to do IETF-domain standardization. > > Hope this helps, > > > > --behcet > > Geoff Mulligan wrote: > > > > >On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 23:33 -0500, Timothy J. Salo wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Working Group Charter > > >>>From: Geoff Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>>Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:20:32 -0600 > > >>> > > >>>What do you mean "that we have no intention of actually implementing > > >>>IPv6 in wireless PANs". We have every intention of implementing IPv6 in > > >>>wireless PANs! > > >>> > > >>> > > >>The working group arguably isn't implementing IPv6 from two perspectives: > > >> > > >>o I don't think the IETF accepts the notion that implementing > > >> a subset of IPv6 is actually implementing IPv6. But, I could > > >> be wrong. I may ask this on question on the main IETF mail list. > > >> Having said that, the working group intends to implement > > >> only a subset of IPv6, (e.g., no IPsec, no mobile IP, etc). > > >> > > >> > > > > > >Too bad that we have to rehash this again because you are coming late to > > >this discussion. We dealt with this issue already and the IESG said > > >that an implementation that did not include IPsec and the like was still > > >an implementation of IPv6. > > > > > > > > >>o The protocol described in the format specification is not > > >> IPv6. If you fed it into an IPv6 stack, nothing good would > > >> happen. It is, however, a protocol that can easily be > > >> transformed into [a subset of] IPv6. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >If you do not use header compression then an IPv6 packet in the payload > > >of the 6lowpan frame format will work perfectly fine and everything good > > >will happen. The 6lowpan compressed headers are never intended to be > > >passed uncompressed out of a 6lowpan. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In fact WE (Invensys and some other companies) already have and WE > > >>>(Invensys) have it deployed in a significant number of homes in pilots > > >>>in the US right now. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>See above. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>I do not agree with the wording for your suggested Charter changes, > > >>>though I do truly appreciate that someone is starting some sort of > > >>>exchange on the list. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>Feel free to suggest alternative language and ideas. > > >> > > >>-tjs > > >> > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>6lowpan mailing list > > >>[email protected] > > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >6lowpan mailing list > > >[email protected] > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
