Two quick comments inline.
On 3/2/07, 김용운 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't think LQI by itself should be used. LQI must be matched with
>other indicators to make good decisions.
I agree. But, in my opinion,
LQI is likely to be the primary key.
The reason is saving TCO.
LQI is good for making single hop decisions, but much more complicated
when we talk about multiple hops (routing).
<snip>
>Regarding the requirements section:
>
>I think that R2 is a bad requirement. I would instead say that routing
>should be efficient. Efficiency can be defined in many ways. There
>might be 6lowpan networks where all devices are power so power usage
>is not important. Alternatively there might be nodes that choose not
>to participate even though they have energy. I think that requiring
>minimal energy routing is too harsh and unrealistic.
In my opinion,
most 6lowpan devices are powered by battery and
The battery power must be the weakest point in business.
As time goes after wireless devices have been installed,
management cost, for examples, battery cost, labor cost for
battery change, maintenance cost, remote monitoring and management
cost, etc. will overwhelm installation cost.
Minimal energy usage is worth adopting for requirement to
save battery cost and relevant labor cost, I think.
"harsh and unrealistic" is a good expression
but solving it must be a technical target.
I guess my comment has more to do with how we solve the problem. I
think that a routing protocol that can handle sleeping nodes (and
adapt quickly) and also one that can be influenced by nodes
willingness (maybe remaining battery) is sufficient. Therefore, I'm
not sure we need an energy aware routing protocol.
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
