Subject: Re: [RSN] Update

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:55:42 -0400

Hi Anthony,

On Jun 6, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Anthony Schoofs wrote:

>
> JP, I agree when you said in a previous email:
>
> > "the proposal is to design a IP routing solution
> > specifically for sensor networks, that would of course be  
> independent
> > to the L1/L2 protocol in use (it may be desirable to take into  
> account
> > link layer attributes when calculating a route but the routing  
> process
> > would not be tied up with the link layer).
>
> In addition, our routing scheme should know when the PAN  
> coordinator/Gateway location has changed to lower and balance the  
> network energy consumption.
> Then new timezones can be assigned and data routed accordingly.

Interesting, your feed-back on several on the new ID would be very  
welcome in
light of the experience with your routing protocol.

>
> I am looking forward to seeing this new WG formed,

Thanks,

JP.

> Best regards,
> Anthony.
>
>
> --
> Anthony Schoofs
> Philips Research WY 7-038
> High Tech Campus 37 , 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
> Email: [email-masked]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Anthony Schoofs
> 04-06-2007 12:06
>
> To
> JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
> cc
> [email-masked]
> Subject
> Re: [RSN] Update
> Classification
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We did some work to schedule a coordinate switching on and off of  
> sensor nodes in order to reduce at maximum the energy consumption  
> of the network.
> We came up with a routing protocol that allows us to route data  
> throughout  the network according to the ON/OFF state of the nodes.
>
> We would like to provide input for an ID on routing schemes that  
> have energy consumption as the first focus.
>
> Best regards,
> Anthony.
>
> --
> Anthony Schoofs
> Philips Research
> High Tech Campus 37 , 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
> Email: [email-masked]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
> 03-06-2007 14:02
>
>
> To
> [email-masked]
> cc
> Subject
> [RSN] Update
> Classification
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Here is an update on where we stand: good progress !
>
> 1) We've been having quite a bit of off-line and on-line discussions
> and there is apparently a good level of interest in this work.
> There are currently 5 IDs in the works:
> * The generic routing requirements: draft-culler-rsn-routing-reqs
> * Two application-specific routing requirements:
>                - Home Networking
>                - Industrial
> * A problem statement
> * An ID on routing metrics
>
> Of course, if you're interested to work on these IDs or other items,
> feel free !
>
> 2) New name
> Although we called this initiative RSN: Routing for Sensor Networks,
> it does apply more generally to constrained nodes (Low Power)
> operating in Lossy Networks. Objects in general would typically be
> part of those networks. So from now on, let's rename this work
> R2LN: "Routing issues for Low Power, Lossy Networks", and use that
> acronym in all IDs.
>
> 3) Next IETF
> We asked for a presentation slot for the next IETF. Depending on the
> feedback, the next step would then to request a BOF in Vancouver.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP and David.
>
> _______________________________________________
> RSN mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
> _______________________________________________
> RSN mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
>

_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn