Re: [Bacnet-developers] IPv6 support

[Carl N. <cne...@de...>]

 
The point is that it is hghly unlikely that any two would be implemented
to the same draft. Since it is unlikely that any other vendors will have
product using the same pre-release version, the router would be
essentially a router to "other". And it would very undesirable for a
product implemented to such a draft to claim to be a BACnet router to
IPv6 since a consumer would assume ti to be a standard one.
 
Also, if there is a new BVLL type or new BVLL message types added, the
values for these will not be assigned until the addendum is published.
This is specifically done so that implementations are not made to public
review drafts and then released into the wild. Past experience shows
that having this happen makes for non-interoperable implementations
being met in the field and ultimately customers having bad experiences
with BACnet product.
 
Carl Neilson

________________________________

From: mat...@fr...
[mailto:mat...@fr...] 
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:58 AM
To: bac...@li...
Subject: Re: [Bacnet-developers] IPv6 support



I don't understand exaclty why a a BACnet router to IPv6 would be
similar to BACnet router to a proprietary network media. Even if the
standard of BacNet/IPv6 is not released, if different implementations
follow the current draft we should have interoperability with every kind
of BacNet networks, shouldn't we ?