Hi Tim, I agree with you in the design issues, but think that your proposal is more suitable/applicable for ROLL WG not in 6LoWPAN WG, because this WG is more about WPAN. However, it is an interesting to see your work/proposal in a draft I-D. I have not worked on your topic but understand that the engineering comparison of short range and large range may not be correct by excluding network complexity and cost.
In particular, I think you need to be sure that the layer 1 (Radio) is defined and specified, I recommend that layer 2 (L2) to be a standard (e.g. IEEE, ITU, or other standards ORG). Then in the I-D you propose standard of IP over (L2 of VHF/UHF Radio) similar to 6Lowpan I-Ds, but I don't think we can standard L2 in IETF if it is not existed and used in the Internet. I may be wrong, if so please reply, AB +++ On 6/30/12, Timothy J. Salo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Is anyone looking at running IP over narrowband very high frequency > (VHF) and ultra high frequency (UHF) data radios? A couple of major > issues come to mind. > > First, bandwidth is extremely limited and valuable. These radios may > provide bandwidths of only 9,600 bits-per-second (bps), 4,800 bps, or > even less. Networks composed of these radios might be viewed as > _wide-area_ wireless sensor networks (WSNs) (in contrast to the > "local-area" WSNs typically built with 6lowpan devices). Link > distances in these narrowband networks may be kilometers or even > tens-of-kilometers long. The narrowband radios used in these networks > may transmit with one to five watts of power. In my view, the > extremely low bandwidths of these networks, combined with the very high > energy cost of transmitting a bit, is likely to drive different > engineering tradeoffs in protocol design (compared to 802.15.4 > networks, where link bandwidths are relatively high and the cost of > transmitting a bit is relatively low). For example, in a narrowband > network, it may make much more sense to compute or store information > whenever possible, rather than transmitting it (more than one) over > the air. While I have not yet done the analysis, it seems to me that > it is quite likely that the engineering tradeoffs make in 6lowpan are > different than the engineering tradeoffs that might be made in a > narrowband radio network. Perhaps, there is utility in a collection of > IP-over-narrowband-radio RFCs. > > Second, there is a pretty complete lack of standards for narrowband > data radios, most importantly at the physical and MAC layers. While > this topic is outside of the purview of the IETF, it is a serious > impediment to building interoperable products. It might also complicate > the process of standardizing IP-over-narrowband-radio specifications. > > -tjs > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
