<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>In a BLIP, pervasive IP has arrived.</title>
		<description>Comments for In a BLIP, pervasive IP has arrived. at http://freaklabs.org , comment 1 to 5 out of 5 comments</description>
		<link>http://freaklabs.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:54:06 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FeedCreator 1.7.2</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://freaklabs.org/index.php/Blog/News/In-a-BLIP-pervasive-IP-has-arrived.html#comment-446</link>
			<description>One obvious way is to have low-cost multi-interface routers not unlike WiFi access points. Better yet, include them in WiFi access points... - jonathan</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:19:36 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://freaklabs.org/index.php/Blog/News/In-a-BLIP-pervasive-IP-has-arrived.html#comment-445</link>
			<description>Jeff: No matter how you do it, you always need some way to physically access the radio link. The benefit of using IP is that it gives you an established way to connect the two networks. No custom gateways or protocol translators are needed.

In the Contiki project, which was the first to do IP-based sensor networks, we have been experimenting with different ways to connect the low-power radio network and the fixed IP infrastructure. We have been using a USB stick that works as a network interface in Windows and Linux, seamlessly connecting the two: http://www.sics.se/~adam/mulligan09seamless.pdf We have also been using a bridge device that connects over a USB/serial link: http://contiki.wiki.sourceforge.net/connecting-to-ipv6

(I don't know how the TinyOS folks plan to connect their IPv6 stack with the fixed IP infrastructure though.) - adam</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:58:49 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://freaklabs.org/index.php/Blog/News/In-a-BLIP-pervasive-IP-has-arrived.html#comment-444</link>
			<description>Actually, Zigbee has already announced they'll be moving to IPv6. If this happens and smart meters are using Zigbee, then the smart meters alone would require a couple million IP addresses which is why IPv4 probably wouldn't work out so well. 6LoWPAN came about to actually re-use the established technology, however TCP and IP header compression were required to fit into 802.15.4 frames which are much smaller than ethernet or 802.11 frames. - Akiba</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:26:13 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://freaklabs.org/index.php/Blog/News/In-a-BLIP-pervasive-IP-has-arrived.html#comment-443</link>
			<description>And it requires special protocol translation hardware to connect a regular IP network to 6lowpan, so why not use well established technology like IPv4 and NAT or Zigbee gateways. Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel. - jeff</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:21:15 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://freaklabs.org/index.php/Blog/News/In-a-BLIP-pervasive-IP-has-arrived.html#comment-442</link>
			<description>It is more than an implementation of the 6lowpan adaptation layer, it is a (partial) implementation of an UDP/IPv6 stack. It also has support for the 6lowpan adaptation layer though. There is an initial TCP stack too. This definitely is a step in the right direction for TinyOS. - adam</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:47:45 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
