On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 14:23:58 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote: > In fact I'll go further: it is a strategic blunder to crown IPv6 as the > winner of the networking protocol layer wars. It's only one of many. (I'm > looking at you, Bluetooth 5.; and there's nothing wrong with IPv4 if that's > what you need.) The real value of OCF, AFAIK, is at the application layer: > CRUDN messaging and the data model.
You do realise Bluetooth 5 did standardise IPv6-over-Bluetooth too, right? It's the same protocol as IPv6 over Low-power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN) over a different radio interface. You're also confusing two layers. We require IPv6 for the Layer 3 where your only other show is IPv4 (other protocols are no longer used and belong in a museum). Bluetooth is Layer 1. You could argue about non-IP Bluetooth -- that is, Bluetooth GATT. We do some early support for that in IoTivity, but it's not standardised. The problem of communication is one, but also because the target type of device where that would make sense is quite possibly too small to run even IoTivity Constrained. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
