Return-Path: Message-ID: <1493225552.3165.5.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: bluetooth 6lowpan interfaces are not virtual anymore From: Jukka Rissanen To: Michael Richardson , Alexander Aring Cc: Network Development , Luiz Augusto von Dentz , "linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Bluetooth Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:52:32 +0300 In-Reply-To: <383.1493218546@dooku.sandelman.ca> References: <2d178eb8-3fbc-3385-6e0c-fa9941713959@pengutronix.de> <28530.1492534783@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <11cf222a-0c1f-4136-091d-719ee68824e1@pengutronix.de> <383.1493218546@dooku.sandelman.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wpan-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Michael, On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:55 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > Alexander Aring wrote: >     >> In a classic SVR4 STREAMS works, it would have been just > another >     >> module.  (No, I'm not a fan of *STREAMS* or of SVR4 in > general, >     >> although I liked some of the ideas). >     >> > >     > ok, I see you complain about "having a virtual on top of wpan >     > interface", or? > >     > I wanted to talk at first about the queue handling which is > introduced >     > when 6LoWPAN is not a virtual interface anymore. Or do you want > to have >     > a queue in front of 6lowpan adaptation (see other mail reply > with ASCII >     > graphics). > > I would like to have a single queue, as close to the hardware as > possible, > such that BQL can do it's thing easily.  Should we rethink outgoing > fragment > handling for 6lowpan?  Clearly the BT people had a need. > I don't think they've had a chance to respond to your complaints. Note that the BT fragmentation (or actually it is called segmentation in BT) is totally different what 802.15.4 is doing. I do not think there is any need to add fragmentation handling into 6lo. Actually the 6lowpan kernel module could probably be simplified to be a library. We did this in Zephyr where we have compress() and uncompress() functions that do all the magic. > >     > We can change that you can run multiple interfaces on one >     > PHY. Currently we just allow one, because address filtering. > Disable >     > address filtering >     > we will loose ACK handling on hardware. > > Yes, that's a limitation of some hardware, and if you enable multiple > PANIDs, > that might be the consequence.... > >     > I can try to implement all stuff in software "for fun, maybe > see what >     > we can do to handle ACK in software, etc" Then you can run > multiple > > I'm not asking you to do it, I'm asking, now that we've gotten to a > certain > point, we have a better idea what the various requirements are, and > can we > re-evaluate things and maybe tweak some things. > > -- > ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh > networks [ > ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network > architect  [ > ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on > rails    [ > Cheers, Jukka