1. Many sensor and control devices will be too small to support a full mesh/ip adaptation implementation. Some of these devices may be as small as 4K of flash and 100s of bytes of RAM and may only be used in a point to point (P2P), simple star, or very simple mesh implementation (please see the attached pdf drawing). Incorporation of these very small devices, I believe, is important to the broad adoption of 6lowpan.
Should we consider how to support these extremely limited devices? Should we make it easy for these simple protocol implementations at this level to adapt to 6lowpan? If we want to include these small devices, should we consider a more constrained design (limited payload, P2P/star only) that would simplify the adaptation layer? 2. How will the group evaluate what mesh, P2P or star protocols should be supported? As David pointed out, we may not be allowing for future capabilities in the current structure of the adaptation layer should we want to support multiple types of L2 protocols. 3. Related to the pending mesh protocol evaluation, is the evaluation of any functionality related to the "cost" of those technical choices in terms of power, code size, complexity, RAM, instructions executed, etc? 4. As was mentioned on the list a while ago, neither the Problem Statement nor the Format documents discuss the overall 6LoWPAN architecture. As we move forward with our next working group items, shouldn't we create a document to describe the high level architecture which might well encompass the criteria for evaluation of the protocols and costs mentioned above? Ron Strich Mobile: 228.369.4332
6lowpan drawing.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
