Breaking News
News & Analysis

Uncle Sam Puts Out IoT Challenge

10/31/2013 07:45 AM EDT
39 comments
NO RATINGS
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 4   >   >>
KB3001
User Rank
CEO
Re: RF + JTAG?
KB3001   10/31/2013 6:24:01 PM
NO RATINGS
One tenth!

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: RF + JTAG?
krisi   10/31/2013 6:09:28 PM
NO RATINGS
Thank you guys, I finally get it....6LoWPAN sounds fancy but it really is IPv6, just re-packaged for wireless area networks...kind back to my point of IPv6 being sufficient for IoT ;-)...Kris
 


chanj0
User Rank
Manager
Re: RF + JTAG?
chanj0   10/31/2013 6:08:14 PM
NO RATINGS
For sensor to send packet to the "gateway", 6LoWPAN, i.e. iP over IEEE802.15.4, makes sense. It saves time on building interconnected infrastructure. Once the packet reaches gateway, the packet will then be decompressed. Ultimatedly, an uncompressed IP packet will be sent to the cloud in whatever mechanism that is defined. For delay tolerant application, I highly suspect the transport layer will stay with TCP. Higher layer can be REST API or SOAP.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: RF + JTAG?
Bert22306   10/31/2013 5:30:47 PM
NO RATINGS
Krisi, this is IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4, instead of over Ethernet. Read all about it.

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6775/?include_text=1

So yes, the comment that IoT would use IP is almost a given. Else, it wouldn't have been called *I*oT.

docdivakar
User Rank
Manager
Re: Doubt
docdivakar   10/31/2013 5:20:57 PM
NO RATINGS
Bert, I agree with you here with a caveat -perhaps Uncle Sam thinks that it can replicate the success it spawned with ARPANet project leading to the modern-day Internet. Such a premise in this context is largely misguided because IoT has progressed without any government initiatives.

IoT will proliferate because of necessity and not by the 'coolness' factor.

MP Divakar

LarryM99
User Rank
CEO
Re: RF + JTAG?
LarryM99   10/31/2013 5:14:38 PM
NO RATINGS
The optimization is actually in the packet size. It is IPv6, but the addressing is shorthanded through the use of a local address table. I believe they also do message compression. The idea is to get the full networking capability of IPv6 without the larger messaging overhead.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: RF + JTAG?
krisi   10/31/2013 4:49:16 PM
NO RATINGS
thanx...how much smaller is it? TCP/IP packet is not that large

KB3001
User Rank
CEO
Re: RF + JTAG?
KB3001   10/31/2013 4:38:54 PM
NO RATINGS
Low power, Krisi. It's lightweight by design: the header, packet size etc. are smaller. It was designed for low power i.e. IoT applications. It makes sense for battery-powered things.

KB3001
User Rank
CEO
Re: RF + JTAG?
KB3001   10/31/2013 4:35:36 PM
NO RATINGS
There is COAP for that, Larry.

PS. Yes, 6LoWPAN is a cut-down version of TCP/IP.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: RF + JTAG?
krisi   10/31/2013 4:30:13 PM
NO RATINGS
Larry, what is the advantage in using 6LOWPAN over plain TCP/IP? I am having hard time understanding why we need a different protocol stack for IoT. TCP/IP is like English lanuage for international talk, sure you can speak some other dialect but why? Kris

<<   <   Page 2 / 4   >   >>
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
EE Times editor Junko Yoshida grills two executives --Rick Walker, senior product marketing manager for IoT and home automation for CSR, and Jim Reich, CTO and co-founder at Palatehome.
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week