Em quarta-feira, 5 de outubro de 2016, ?s 06:28:06 CEST, Jaewook Jung escreveu: > > Let me be clear: the request needs to be answered. It just doesn't need to > > go down to the socket level. > > It is not what I meant. > I think the request should be ignored if it is sent by itself, so never be > answered of course. It is impossible to make the multicast message just not > go down to the socket level as you mentioned because the message should be > sent to other stack(device) anyway.
The request must be answered. That is not in question. The question is whether it needs to be parsed from the socket before it gets answered, or whether the stack can answer it from a higher layer and simply ignore the datagram when it arrives via the socket loopback. > I was thinking that sending request to itself and answering it to itself > again are unnecessary sequence. Let me know if there is any usage scenario. > > And, the other connectivities(BT/BLE/NFC) don't send a message to itself. > Multicast loopback is happened only on IP. > That is the reason to block it for the consistency of usability on IoTivity. Agreed. That is a good reason to implement answering from a higher layer and ignoring the looped-back message. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
