Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byMary Kelly Modified over 7 years ago
Doc: IEEE 802. 15-12-0379-00-0008 Submission July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 1 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [ Adaptation Layer for PAC Applications] Date Submitted: [May14th, 2012] Source: [Marco Hernandez, Huan-Bang Li, Igor Dotlić, Ryu Miura ] Company: [NICT] Address: [3-4 Hikarino-oka, Yokosuka, 239-0847, Japan] Voice:[+81 46-847-5439] Fax: [+81 46-847-5431] E-Mail: Re: [In response to call for applications for 802.15.8 TG] Abstract:[ ] Purpose:[Material for discussion in 802.15.8 TG] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release:The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15.
Doc: IEEE 802. 15-12-0379-00-0008 Submission Introduction Applications with IEEE802.15 Stds consider a star topology (limited multi-hop) with non-IP communication. Conventional applications employing IEEE802.15 Stds consider IP is not well-suited for low power WPAN. Without a common network layer, such applications require an application-layer gateway to communicate with other systems (complex to design and manage). On the other hand, PAC applications are envisioned to require deployment flexibility, scalability and robustness. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 2
Doc: IEEE 802. 15-12-0379-00-0008 Submission Introduction A common network protocol is highly desirable for such flexibility and scalability of PAC applications. In fact, in past years considerable research has tried to provide IP communication capabilities to IEEE802.15 devices with IPv6. IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) released a new Std based on 6LoWPAN for low power and lossy networks (LLN), aka IEEE802.15.4 devices. Basically, it adds an adaptation layer to the IEEE802.15.4 Std to handle IPv6. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 3
Doc: IEEE 802. 15-12-0379-00-0008 Submission Possible PAC architecture This adaptation layer allows to take routing or forwarding decisions at such adaptation layer rather than at the network layer. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 4 Path computation & packet forwarding
Doc: IEEE 802. 15-12-0379-00-0008 Submission Mesh-under vs Route-over An IP link is defined by those nodes that are reachable over a single IP hop (single broadcast domain). WiFi emulates the above with a subnet containing clients that only communicate with an access point. Bringing IPv6 to WLLNs, such as PAC, means how to emulate the single broadcast domain. This is referred to as the mesh-under vs route-over debate. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 5
Doc: IEEE 802. 15-12-0379-00-0008 Submission Network model For multi-hop communication with route-over, border routers (BR), routers (R) perform IP routing within a WLLN (IEEE802.15) to a host (h) July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 6 Link-local scope covers only the nodes within radio range of a given node
Doc: IEEE 802. 15-12-0379-00-0008 Submission Network model For multi-hop communication with mesh-under, the border router (BR) is the only IP router in the WLLN. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 7 Link-local scope includes all nodes in the WLLN. A mesh mechanism must be provided to support multi-hop.
Doc: IEEE 802. 15-12-0379-00-0008 Submission Example Not all devices that are in radio range need to be part of the same WLLN. When multiple WLLNs are formed with globally unique IPv6 addresses, device a of WLLN A wants to communicate with device b of WLLN B: –Route over: IPv6 address of b is set as the destination (devices perform IP routing to the BR) –Mesh under: Only one IP hop from device a to BR A, no matter how many radio hops are apart (there is a mesh routing protocol to reach the BR by devices) –Devices use the physical address (MAC address) July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 8
Doc: IEEE 802. 15-12-0379-00-0008 Submission Pros - cons Now, PAC applications do not consider infrastructure, so mesh-under seems the most attractive approach. TG8 may define partially/totally an adaptation layer and mesh under algorithms for routing. However, it is the most challenging due to the dynamic radio properties lead to more complex forwarding and routing (dynamic topology, etc.). July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 9
Doc: IEEE 802. 15-12-0379-00-0008 Submission Pros - cons In route-over, the emulation of a broadcast domain is constrained to a radio Tx. range. TG8 may define partially/totally an adaptation layer –However, multi-hop will not handle by TG8 under this approach. July 2012 Hernandez,Li,Dotlić (NICT)Slide 10
© 2023 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.