Hi Oliver, your remark illustrates the need to discuss what functionality we expected to be implemented on these devices.
Without a list of specs the RAM/flash size indication is not terribly meaningful. Ciao Hannes On 02/03/2017 12:35 PM, Oliver Hahm wrote: > Hi Hannes! > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:54:03PM +0100, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> On 02/01/2017 07:32 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: >>> > PS: I am not sure about the "motes". Are you talking about BLE >>> beacons? >>> >>> It's a good example. But really anything that basically can never be field >>> upgraded. >> >> I guess I am fine calling them class 0 devices that are basically >> outside our scope since they do not run IP. > > I'm not so sure we should discard these devices so hasty. Sure, with just some > tens of bytes of RAM, you won't be able to implement 6lowpan-HC or DTLS. But > as soon as we have some kilobytes of RAM (let's say 5kB as on some MSP430 > motes), simple IPv6 connectivity is possible, if its functionality is well > defined. As far as I know, current IPv6/6lo specifications do not consider > unidirectional devices, but is there anything wrong in a simple sensor that > just broadcasts (multicasts) its sensor values to a hardwired IPv6 address > (e.g., ff02::2)? > > Cheers, > Oleg >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
