Hello,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]> wrote: > Any thoughts about this classification? I have just asked the same question a few minutes ago :) On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm concerned that these ranges are too similar, and the distinction would > be short-lived. > > I expect devices to persistently operate differently when their parameters > are at least 2 order of magnitudes different. I totally agree and couldn't say better. On my side, I would replace Class 1 by Class 2. According to my analysis, a good chip with the lowest common denominator features for Internet of Things could be the STM32L Family (Ultra Low Power Cortex-M3 32 bit, up to 48K SRAM/384K Flash, AES) : http://www.emcu.it/STM8L-STM32L-UltraLowPowerPlatform.html So, is there any need for 6LoWPAN or a "Lightweight IP Stack" ? Why not to capitalize around the lwIP stack that, moreover, supports IPv6 ? : http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lwip.git/tree/CHANGELOG "2011-05-17: Patch by Ivan Delamer (only checked in by Simon Goldschmidt) * nearly the whole stack: Finally, we got decent IPv6 support, big thanks to Ivan! (this is work in progress: we're just post release anyway :-)" By the way, after that, there are the future chips around the Cortex-A5 architecture : https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9DxfCwAl1JAJ:realview.com.cn/shoppic/down/seminar/1011/Track%25201/Tech%2520Symposium%2520-%2520Cortex-A5.pdf+Tech%2520Symposium%2520-%2520Cortex-A5.pdf&hl=fr&gl=fr&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjTOGdalGDTg4lwwL-QM8rwVQi9ywlEvO_0aexJne-9lLDQooQzsi9LcFHNMFBm3bbbNT67qB8RURsATZ0TtqoeNsNWGVKk6fEeV_7SmMN_t-SAW4ZWRu30aZhjYkExu-DYJATS&sig=AHIEtbT8XrAlTv_cpDxvNbaECQLwVpCN0Q Best Regards, Guillaume FORTAINE On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm concerned that these ranges are too similar, and the distinction would > be short-lived. > > I expect devices to persistently operate differently when their parameters > are at least 2 order of magnitudes different. > > The numbers below are so close that they will change and thus likely overlap > over timescales that are too short, IMO, for the IETF to be concerned. > > (i.e., there was a time when the difference between 4KB and 8KB was > important; now it's irrelevant) > > Joe > > > On 1/24/2012 8:25 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> >> Hey guys, >> >> after sending the workshop announcements to a few working groups I was >> asked what I mean by "constrained" device. >> >> I responded with a pointer to the classification Carsten proposed in >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-lwig-guidance-00: >> >> +---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+ >> | Name | data size (e.g., RAM) | code size (e.g., Flash) | >> +---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+ >> | Class 1 | ~ 10 KiB | ~ 100 KiB | >> | | | | >> | Class 2 | ~ 50 KiB | ~ 250 KiB | >> +---------+-----------------------+-------------------------+ >> >> During the IAB technical plenary at the last IETF meeting Jari claimed >> that we need to have a Class 0 here as well to cover his sensor >> deployment. >> >> Any thoughts about this classification? >> >> Ciao >> Hannes >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lwip mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
