On Mar 13, 2018 5:25 PM, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 01:54:13 PDT Nadavd wrote: > Hi Dev > > From what i understand the iotivity doesn't support only IPv4 multi-cast? It does. You may have found a bug. But that shouldn't be a showstopper because IPv6 should be working. > Cause my problem is when i am on a local network (Router IPv4 & IPv6), i > am getting a problem that the server sometimes not getting the IPv6 , > and because of that i am getting an error on the server that > "error:socket IPv6". > > This is the reason why i need to use IPv4. No, that means you need to fix IPv6. What you're asking for is like going to your mechanic and saying "raise the volume of the horn, because the brakes don't work". You need to fix your brakes instead. More accurately, "raise the volume on my horn, because the other guy's brakes don't work." I think there's a deeper problem here: OCF conflates protocol layers. The CRUDN messaging layer is one thing; the transport/networking layers are a whole 'nother thing. Maybe OCF conformance should be split into application, transport, and networking level conformance. Suppose I have an engine that supports OCF messaging and data model, but only over TCP/IP. I do not see why that should not be considered conformant. Call it OCF/TCP/IPv4 conformant. If you want something for constrained environments, you want OCF/UDP/IPv6 conformant. Note that the analog of OCF, namely HTTP, does not mandate a transport layer, let alone a networking layer. G
_______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
