Hey,
is anybody working on or are there plans for support for discovering 802.15.4 PANs?
Kaspar
Hi,
@Jonas, is your 802.15.4 MAC layer implementation planned to cope with this?
Cheers, Hauke
Hi,
Yes, that was the intention. However, I had some issues and didn´t really made huge progress. Will hopefully come to a clean solution for a csma_mac-layer that we need as a basis for further MAC layer. This will include message dispatching mechanisms, cca-mechanisms (backoff-time implementation when needed) and acknowledge handling (when needed).
As it seems, there are many people that would need an IEEE 802.15.4 MAC-layer. Had also a discussion with Johann; we think an "IEEE 802.15.4-MAC layer task force" might be a good idea. As a first step we could make a todo list, like [2] and a Wiki-page for further for further explanations.
What do you think of the idea of an "IEEE 802.15.4-MAC layer task force"? Maybe we can discuss that later in the bi-weekly meeting?
Hi again ;),
We just opened an Issue [1] "802.15.4(e) MAC-Layer Task Force" where we can discuss further steps.
Even if this issue might be related to an 802.15.4(e) MAC-Layer, some parts of that could also be of interest for other (future) MAC-layer.
From our perspective an IEEE 802.15.4(e) MAC layer will be most beneficial. The most important points would be (i) official standardization and (ii) interoperatiblity (RIOT <-> other OS).
What would be your opinion on IEEE 802.15.4e. Is the amendment (e) a straight forward extension to the basic 802.15.4 standard or does this extention omit the basic mechanisms such as "beacon-mode" and the "superframe-architecture"? Does it makes more sense to implement firstly an basic IEEE 802.15.4 and then the amendment (e) or begin directly with the amendment (e)? Reference for amendment (e) could be OpenWSN.
[1] - https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/issues/3039
Best Johann, Jonas