On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 16:58 +0200, Mark Townsley wrote:
>
> >> The majority of IP-based home networks today are neither
> power-constrained nor particularly lossy.
I would agree that that is the case today, but suggest we look ahead a
bit.
There's a fair head of steam building in emergency services that has the
term 'broadband' attached to it. Lots of confusion, but...
We're about to see a repeat of what we saw in the CATV market where the
vendors thought you'd connect a computer at home to the DOCSIS network.
But we all hooked up routers instead. This time the story is the
cellphone folks rolling out '4G' network segments and naively thinking
that we'll just hook up cellphones (which have since become computers --
mine has 8G of RAM in it!).
Scenario for orientation. Instead of the EMT in the ambulance having a
cellphone to call the emergency room, the EMT will be armed with several
diagnostic gadgets attached to a LAN (either ethernet or WiFi). And a
router. The router will, in turn be linked to the rest of internet with
a radio-WAN.
Scenario implications. Right now, emergency services tend to rely on a
set of high sites -- Monterey County where I live, has eleven. But the
broadband technologies all look better with an order of magnitude more
sites (think schoolhouse roofs) and consequently more handoffs (aka
routing table volatility).
Topology. The radio-WAN is in interior of internet, not fringe.
Power-constrained -- probably not much change since a lot of this will
be vehicle-mount -- ambulances, fire engines, etc. This all changes as
soon as the trooper dismounts and exceeds WiFi range from his vehicle.
Lossy. Depends on how you define the term... But radios lose more
bits (and hence more packets) than wires.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
