Bleutooth SIG contra IEEE 802.15?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Daniel Meyer - 24 Jul 2005 12:21 GMT

Hello,

I just write my diploma thesis and here is some confusion about the
differences between the Bluetooth SIG and IEEE 802.15.

The literature said, that the Bluetooth SIG published their specifications
in 1999 and 2001. And I can also read, that the IEEE-working-group 802.15
grab these specifications and made their own standards based on the
original Bluetooth-specs.

And now the confusion: Some literature said, that there were TWO
Bluetooth-specs today: Bluetooth SIG and IEEE 802.15, both incompatible.
Another books said, that today the ONLY Bluetooth-specs are from IEEE
802.15, they said, that Bluetooth *is* IEEE 802.15 and IEEE 802.15 *is*
Bluetooth.

What is correct?

Signature

MfG, Daniel

Reply to this Message

Anthony R. Gold - 24 Jul 2005 12:58 GMT

> And now the confusion: Some literature said, that there were TWO
> Bluetooth-specs today: Bluetooth SIG and IEEE 802.15, both incompatible.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> What is correct?

Only the lower transport layers (L2CAP, LMP, Baseband, and radio) of the
Bluetooth wireless technology are defined in IEEE Std 802.15.1. Maybe you
should contact the Bluetooth SIG via www.bluetooth.org for help.

Tony

Reply to this Message

Daniel Meyer - 24 Jul 2005 16:08 GMT

Am Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:58:25 +0100 schrieb Anthony R. Gold:

> Only the lower transport layers (L2CAP, LMP, Baseband, and radio) of the
> Bluetooth wireless technology are defined in IEEE Std 802.15.1.

Yes, I know the difference: Bluetooth SIG defines his specs down from the
physical layer up to application layer, so one big protocol-stack exist,
including the applications the user can use.

IEEE 802 only defines the lower two layers and has a separate LLC-layer as
an abstraction to the real physical basis. The layers above are filled up
by TCP/IP etc., who can talk to IEEE 802 via the LLC.
As I can read, the IEEE grab the Bluetooth specs, put their own LLC onto
the L2CAP and finally this is 802.15.1?

So IEEE take the basics of Bluetooth to make their own things on top of
this? And every Bluetooth-device I can buy will follow the specs by
Bluetooth SIG an *not* the IEEE 802.15?

Signature

MfG, Daniel

Reply to this Message

Anthony R. Gold - 24 Jul 2005 19:22 GMT

> Am Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:58:25 +0100 schrieb Anthony R. Gold:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> this? And every Bluetooth-device I can buy will follow the specs by
> Bluetooth SIG an *not* the IEEE 802.15?

I think it is more accurate to say that every Bluetooth device will comply
with IEEE 802.15.1 plus the extensions which are defined by Bluetooth SIG.

Tony

Reply to this Message

Rob Shepherd - 24 Jul 2005 13:39 GMT

> Hello,
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> What is correct?

Bluetooth is a trademark of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) and an
IEEE spec can only be referred to as "Bluetooth" if they have obtained the
license to use this mark AND All products pass through the original Bluetooth
Qualification process.

I.E you can't open a burger bar and call it MacDonalds unless you buy a
MacDonalds franchise and MacDonalds say your burgers are made the same, with the
same ingredients....

To make a similar networking scheme, Personal Area Networking for example, the
IEEE may as well use the Bluetooth standard as a basis. It's tried and tested
and the limitations are well known etc....

The problem that the IEEE face is that Bluetooth is not ISO OSI compatible, as
all other (afaik) IEEE 802 standards follow.
in other words, the protocol stack in Bluetooth does not closely map to the
seven layer OSI architecture. The 802 systems do follow this, near enough.

A compatibility issue when linking two independant systems is also addresses
schemes, however in this case it works in the IEEE's favour because the native
device addresses are taken directly from the IEEE hardware address space.

in other words, if the two standards are "able" to talk to each other, there
will be not address collisions or mismatching at the MAC level.

Rob

Signature

Rap it up for the common good
Let us enlist the neighbourhood
It's OK, I've overstood
This is a wordy rappinghood. OK, bye.

Tomtomclub, 1980.

Reply to this Message