Le 01/04/2011 14:15, Robert Cragie a écrit :
Alex,
RFC4944 and 6lowpan-hc form an adaptation layer between IPv6 and,
currently, 802.15.4.
A-ha.
To be clear:
BT BR/EDR is not 802.15.4, BT LE is not 802.15.4, BT BR/EDR is not BT
LE (MAC or PHY)
Ok; you may see some technical differences, you may direct me to the
technical differences.
So each MAC/PHY needs its own considerations when it comes to an
adaptation layer.
Ok, yes, when it comes to an adaptation layer; the adaptation layer is
called "lowpan" in rfc4944. Yes, "lowpan" adaptation layer would need
to be well adapted on each different MAC, one being BT-LE.
But I am talking pure IPv6 straight over bluetooth, without "lowpan".
That IPv6 over bluetooth works ok without lowpan, with "bnep".
The meeting presentation slides say "BNEP can be optionally used between
compressed IPv6 and BT-LE L2CAP".
I agree. Moreover, bnep can also be used ok to run IPv6 over bluetooth
without lowpan, without compressed IPv6. Is "lowpan" some better than
"bnep"? Why would one prefer "lowpan" instead of "bnep"? Thanks for an
indication.
My feeling is that many concepts could be abstracted and maybe
written in a common document but ultimately, there will be three
different adaptation layers.
Ah... more adaptation layers...
Also "bluetooth is to 802.15.4 what wifi is to 802.11" - completely
wrong comparison. Bluetooth has nothing to do with 802.15.4.
Yes they do: they're both PAN.
Alex
Robert
On 01/04/2011 12:41 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 01/04/2011 13:16, [email protected] a écrit :
There is a world of difference between 802.15.4 and BT-LE.
yes, but I mean from the standpoint of IP.
Is the MAC address format different between bt and bt-le?
(including format of multicast addresses)
Is the bt-le mac still doing reassembly (as bt does) thus accept
the same minimal mtu as bt, i.e.1280bytes?
Is bt-le still a multicast-capable link layer, like bt is?
Alex
On 4/1/11 5:33 AM, "ext Alexandru
Petrescu"<[email protected]> wrote:
Le 01/04/2011 12:12, Carsten Bormann a écrit :
It seems to me IMHO bt-le is just a new phy, but same mac,
hence ip would not be affected.
From the presentation, I had a different impression.
But of course, a document stating we do things over bt-le
as usually as over bt, would not hurt.
Actually, it is required, as RFC4944 and its updates only
define 6LoWPAN for IEEE 802.15.4. If two people took these
documents and tried to apply them to BT-LE, they wouldn't
necessarily arrive at interoperable specifications.
To me IMHO bluetooth is to 802.15.4 what wifi is to 802.11 - a
marketing name. It seems sufficient to specify ipv6 over
802.15.4 and that would cover all variants of bluetooth. There
is no ipv6-over-802.11n, nor ipv6-over-wifilowpower, for
example.
I may be wrong though about bluetooth being mostly 802.15.4
rfc4944 and rfc2460.
Is the WG re-opened?
No, it is alive and well until such a time when it is
actually being closed. All that was said is that the Prague
meeting will be the last physical meeting of the WG. We want
to close our unfinished business, and a number of documents
are based on discussions that went on at least since
Beijing, so if they fit our charter and we have energy to
work on them, there is no problem doing that.
sounds like doing new work without physical meetings... ok...
Alex
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan
mailing list [email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing
list [email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list
[email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
