From: "Ian Chakeres" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From Date: 2007-03-03 AM 1:15:27
<snip> >On 3/2/07, Yong-Woon KIM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>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. I'm not a technology expert in this area. But I'm VERY interested in how I can be winner against my competitors in my business and battle field. Energy saving is a vital factor for my business. You think R2 seems to be a bad requirement. I revisited the R2: "R02: Shortest path calculation must be based on minimal energy usage." I'm very happy with R2. Regarding your comment.. We have to define "energy aware routing protocol" first. "a routing protocol that can handle sleeping nodes (and adapt quickly) and can be influenced by nodes willingness (maybe remaining battery)" seems to me that it is a kind of energy saving routing protocol. How to save energy is a technical target to be achieved. R2 doesn't state any solution. Your idea and comment is ok to me if it is helpful for energy saving in routing operations. A new energy saving routing protocol also is ok to me. The only one that I want to ask you and sincere engineers is to give me an efficient routing protocol for energy saving. Then I can meet the TTM first. Brand-new one, adaptation or reuse is not an issue to me. I REALLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SINCERE EFFORTS IN THIS AREA. Regards, KIM, Yong-Woon ps) I'm not a real salesman but was. I think so in my mind all the time while doing my R/D jobs. _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
