On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 7:15 PM Haoyu Song <haoyu.s...@futurewei.com> wrote:
> Hi Alexander, > > > > Thanks for the clarification! It seems you suggest that the bandwidth > efficiency (i.e., the header overhead) is much more important than the cost > of storage and processing in wireless. It would be great if we could find > some quantitative research results. Is there any such info available? It’s > also good to know that SCHC already supports direct device communications. > How about 6loWPAN? Same? > > > It is important to note that there are several 6lo data links that employ RFC6282 header compression including RFC8163, which is wired. (Indeed, I believe 6282 is a common denominator of published 6lo RFCs.) So, from my perspective, I'd like your proposal to show why RFC6282 _won't_ work for your application. Re: quantitative research results for the comparative energy costs of different 6lo design tradeoffs, I believe these studies do exist and folks in t2trg might be able to point you to specific papers. Most (all?) 6lo data links are characterized by low data rates, so it's important to consider the latency win of IPv6 header compression as an additional consideration. Regards, Kerry <snip>
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
