Fragmentation in LPWAN considerations: CoAP Block vs SCHC fragmentation
draft-gomez-frag-lpwan-considerations-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Carles Gomez , Jon Crowcroft | ||
| Last updated | 2020-02-28 (Latest revision 2019-08-27) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The SCHC adaptation layer provides header compression and fragmentation functionality between IPv6 and an underlying LPWAN technology. SCHC fragmentation has been specifically designed for the characteristics of LPWANs. However, when CoAP is used at the application layer, there exists an alternative approach for fragmentation, which is using the CoAP Block option. This document aims at illustrating the advantages and limitations of each approach for transferring larger payloads.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)