Abstract

Field: Robot hardware compatibility standards; network protocol architecture; robot interoperability

Problem Solved: Prior robot connectivity standards conflate physical interface compatibility with network cooperation capability. A robot that is physically compatible with a peer cannot determine at the hardware layer whether that peer is capable of network cooperation protocols without initiating a full software handshake. This creates unnecessary latency and complexity in multi-robot environments.

Disclosure Summary: RPnP™ Layer 6 — the RP2P Bridge — defines a minimal hardware-level capability handshake that declares network protocol capability at the physical connector level, cleanly separating the hardware compatibility stack (RPnP™) from the network cooperation protocol (RP2P™). A robot advertising P2P capability via pin 24 (Type-A) or pins 43–44 (Type-B) is declaring hardware readiness for RP2P™ network cooperation without initiating any software protocol exchange.

Key Technical Details:

• P2P-SIG pin 24 (Type-A) and P2P-COORD pins 43–44 (Type-B, LVDS) carry hardware P2P capability signal

• Layer 6 capability bit L6_CAPABLE in 64-bit capability bitmask (bit 62) declared in Layer 0 mDNS TXT record

• Bridge adapter specification: Type-A to Type-B transition provides software P2P only in bridge mode; amber LED indicator required

• Clean architectural separation: RPnP™ defines hardware compatibility; RP2P™ defines network cooperation; Layer 6 is the normative bridge mapping

Prior Art Differentiation: No prior hardware plug-and-play standard defines a hardware-level network protocol capability handshake as a distinct layer. USB and similar standards do not separate physical compatibility from network cooperation capability at the hardware pin level.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Download

Share

COinS