So while both are likely possible they're not recommended. I should know
better. My brain gets going and occasionally forgets about the whole
constrained device aspect. I suppose it would make more sense in both cases
to use something that looked more like the Linux based IoT-A8 device
(though, I'd probably go with the NDA free Freescale iMX6) with a few
radios and wired Ethernet and/or wifi.

Then again... I suppose with Hauke's recent ENC18j60 work it might make
even more sense to use how ever many cheap single band 430 devices plugged
into an Ethernet switch. Hmmm... I wonder if enough power could be siphoned
off a non-POE switch to power a small micro like a 430 and a 15.4 radio.

Anyways. You make good points about routing overhead and buffers. Routing
should be left to the big 110/220 Linux boxes with their endless supply of
RAM.

Thanks for the quick reply.

--adam

On Tue Nov 11 2014 at 1:58:35 PM Martine Lenders <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> 2014-11-11 22:43 GMT+01:00 Adam Hunt <[email protected]>:
>
>> This reminds me... I was wondering, would it be possible to host more
>> than one wireless interface on a theoretical RIOT border router? I was
>> thinking about the possibility of a single boarder router with both 2.4 GHz
>> and sub-GHz radios on it.
>
>
> Theoretically yes, but keep in mind that this increases the size of the
> greatest fiend in the embedded Internet: the buffers ;-)
>
>
>> Another thing I was thinking was a wireless coordinator (no wired
>> ethernet, wifi, or what have you) with multiple radios in the various bands
>> to allow communication between devices in different portions of the
>> spectrum. This would allow for a network that physically looks contiguous
>> instead of having to have two disparate wireless networks that are required
>> to communicate via a border router or maybe even a classic Linux/BSD router.
>>
>
> That would be a border router nevertheless (just between two LoWPANs*). So
> yes, though it is not described in any standard I know, this scenario might
> be possible. At least in theory… But even than I would propably prefer to
> connect multiple boards over an Ethernet switch, just to keep the routing
> overhead low ;-).
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Adam
>>
>
> You're welcome,
> Martine
>
>
> * LoWPAN as in Low-Power wireless personal area network, not to be
> confused with 6LoWPAN ;-)
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Reply via email to