Hi Daniel!
Is this not a requirement of the routing?
Did you have a look at the IEEE 802.15.4 specification? It's assumed to have
a so called PAN coordinator that forces the network to a star topology. It's
extendable to a tree of stars, but still you need a PAN coordinator in every
region.
Hi,
I just stumbled across ng_netconf - we should rename this to avoid confusion
with RFC 6241 [1]. If the stack would have a name, we could simply call it
NAME_conf...
Cheers,
Oleg
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241
--
panic(Alas, I survived.\n);
Hi,
Martine and me had the same discussion yesterday. Until we have a name,
NG_NETOPT would be the natural choice I guess...
Cheers,
Hauke
On 12.05.2015 09:54, Oleg Hahm wrote:
Hi,
I just stumbled across ng_netconf - we should rename this to avoid confusion
with RFC 6241 [1]. If the stack
On May 11, 2015 3:12 PM, Daniel Krebs m...@daniel-krebs.net wrote:
Hi Joakim,
+1 We use mostly Contiki-based applications presently and it would be
a big improvement if it was possible to get ContikiMAC duty cycling
working in RIOT as well.
Who is we if I may ask? Just curious.
Sorry
Hi Daniel!
As it seems that there are only 2 MAC implementations for now [1,2], both
not what I'm searching for and also not merged, I decided to try this on my
own.
There's a third inside the OpenWSN stack using the TSCH (Time Slotted Channel
Hopping) as specified in the IEEE 802.15.4e
Hey,
what about `ipc_stack` due to its utilization of the former? But still: I'm
still not convinced of the reason to give it a name. All operating systems
have a default stack but no one is bound to use it and can use their
`ultra` stack etc. (in Linux e.g. as a library). The naming of uIP is
Hi!
what about `ipc_stack` due to its utilization of the former? But still: I'm
still not convinced of the reason to give it a name. All operating systems
have a default stack but no one is bound to use it and can use their
`ultra` stack etc. (in Linux e.g. as a library). The naming of uIP is
On May 12, 2015, at 11:00 AM 5/12/15, Martine Lenders
authmille...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Am 12.05.2015 08:08 schrieb Oleg Hahm oliver.h...@inria.fr:
Hi Daniel!
Is this not a requirement of the routing?
Did you have a look at the IEEE 802.15.4 specification? It's assumed to
Hi Emmanuel,
One question: do you expect that network membership is rather dynamic,
or rather static? (i.e. do nodes come and go due to mobility for
example, or due to really long sleeping periods).
Depending on the answer to this question, some mechanisms may be more
applicable than
Hi Oleg,
PAN coordinators are only required for the beacon enabled mode in IEEE
802.15.4. 6LoWPAN, for instance, does not require this mode (I'm not even sure
if it is supported by the spec) and thus, there is no need for a PAN
coordinator or star topology.
That's unfortunately not the case.
Hi Daniel!
PAN coordinators are only required for the beacon enabled mode in IEEE
802.15.4. 6LoWPAN, for instance, does not require this mode (I'm not even
sure
if it is supported by the spec) and thus, there is no need for a PAN
coordinator or star topology.
That's unfortunately not the
Hi Oleg again,
There's a third inside the OpenWSN stack using the TSCH (Time Slotted
Channel Hopping) as specified in the IEEE 802.15.4e amendment. I'm
currently spending some time to see how it could be used separately
from the remaining OpenWSN stack, but don't expect any results before
Hey,
On 05/12/2015 09:54 AM, Oleg Hahm wrote:
I just stumbled across ng_netconf - we should rename this to avoid confusion
with RFC 6241 [1]. If the stack would have a name, we could simply call it
NAME_conf...
If nameless sticks, we could just replace all ng_ with nl_ ...
Until we port
Hi,
Am 12. Mai 2015 20:26:58 MESZ, schrieb Oleg Hahm oliver.h...@inria.fr:
Hi!
what about `ipc_stack` due to its utilization of the former? But
still: I'm
still not convinced of the reason to give it a name. All operating
systems
have a default stack but no one is bound to use it and can use
Hi Ludwig!
Isn't ccn-lite using the lower layer(s) (MAC, LLC, driver - correct me if
I'm wrong) of the old stack and should be upgraded to use the lower layer(s)
of the new stack? (What about OpenWSN?) Or are those layers not considered
part of the stack?
Yes, you're right, ccn-lite can run
15 matches
Mail list logo
