On 30.6.2015 15.12, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
A --- M --- B
[...]
M doesn't publish a NODE-STATE TLV, but other than that it fully
participates in the protocol.
However, if you want to _bridge_ stuff, you can just forward 'things
from A to B, and things from B to A' on the M node, and it should work.
I'm probably missing something, then.
For a given node N, let N's Silly Walk Set, written SWS(N), be the set
of nodes that N includes in the computation of its network hash.
If M is just forwarding beween A and B, and is not publishing a node
state, then SWS(A) = {A} and SWS(B) = {B}. Therefore, the network
states published by A and B will be different, and everytime N forwards
A's network state to B, B will reset its trickle timer, and similarly in
the other direction.
What am I missing?
If node M forwards the packets verbatim between nodes A and node B, they
think they're adjacent. ('bridging')
However, if node M wants to actually participate in the protocol instead
of being light-weight packet forwarder (which requires keeping track of
e.g. one node on each of two links, and just communicate with that one,
and relay multicasts or convert them to unicasts to that particular
tracked node on other side of the fence), it gets more complicated.
That forwarding scheme does not preclude M from also keeping it's own
read-only dataset.
Cheers,
-Markus
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
