On segunda-feira, 10 de outubro de 2016 17:38:55 CEST Gregg Reynolds wrote: > consider the options: say, 2 networks NWA and NWB. each can have one or more > gateway nodes. Maybe you want some of the other nodes to support > internetworking, others not. should the other network itself be > representable as a resources? or should bridging nodes be invisible? I > guess I think this is a much larger hairball than the wiki proposals and > current implementation allow.
Why do you want some devices not to find others? What's the use-case for that? > one rather obvious problem: client sends a discovery message with RM option > ( i.e discover stuff on the other network cmd.) There are discovery options > here that are not currently addressed: > > 1. disover locally only > 2 discover remotely only > 3 discover locally and remotely Again, why? If a request is sent and it can be answered, it should be answered. The problem I see ensuring that the responses include addresses that the discovering client can address. As long as we're only doing IP, that's easy. For all non-IP connections, the GW simply operates like the Bridge that I described and creates an IP proxy resource. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
