Alex,RFC4944 and 6lowpan-hc form an adaptation layer between IPv6 and, currently, 802.15.4. 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)So each MAC/PHY needs its own considerations when it comes to an adaptation layer. 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.
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.
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? AlexOn 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... AlexGruesse, 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
