On 02/13/2014 02:51 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
Also I tried to log an item in the Jira but I'm not sure how. Maybe I
need special access rights? I created an account at least. Also, I see
issues in github too. Which is the right place to log things?
Still hoping to get clarification on this.
The existing IDENTITY socket option is useless for your purpose because
it is transmitted at the end of the handcheck in the metadata. When a
ROUTER receives a new connection, it assigns to it a own forged identity
(random for the first peer and then incremented for the next ones). It
is a 5
The greeting's signature would be an easier place (8 bytes available).
Le 14/02/2014 09:50, Laurent Alebarde a écrit :
The existing IDENTITY socket option is useless for your purpose
because it is transmitted at the end of the handcheck in the metadata.
When a ROUTER receives a new connection,
Having the local socket tell the remote peer about the mapping it has
created seems very roundabout. How about just allowing the mapping in
the local socket to be replaced anytime identity information is received
from the remote peer?
I don't know how this works at the ZMTP level, but I assume
Le 14/02/2014 19:44, Justin Karneges a écrit :
Having the local socket tell the remote peer about the mapping it has
created seems very roundabout. How about just allowing the mapping in
the local socket to be replaced anytime identity information is received
from the remote peer?
That's what
I'd like to move forward with fixing this. Can I get a confirmation that
I should proceed? Basically I want to make it so if a connection
reconnects, and an explicit identity is received from the peer, then it
should overwrite any previously set identity for that peer.
Also I tried to log an
It's not about zmq, just imagine someone comes to you and you say him you
are x, after he left someone came too, so without his identity how will
you decide if he is the same person or not?
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.comwrote:
I'd like to move forward with
The new peer asserts its own identity. There is not a question about
whether the new peer is the same as before. The peer very clearly is or
is not the same, based on the identity it provides. The problem is that
remote identities are only honored for the first peer.
On 02/13/2014 03:00 PM,
Here's an even simpler example using REQ/ROUTER:
https://gist.github.com/jkarneges/1fa64e9763561f53daef
It doesn't demonstrate the routing problem but it does demonstrate the
identity binding oddity. You can see the ROUTER side that the envelope
id is always the first id it has ever seen, even
Hi,
1) ROUTER in program A is set to connect to a bind socket in program B.
2) Both programs are started, and the connection is established.
3) A determines B's socket identity out-of-band, and is able to send
messages to B.
3) B is terminated and the connection is lost.
4) B is started again,
I think you are creating new socket at step 4, then Router will assign
new socket identites to incoming peers.
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/9c6aa1e9e00ab11a1c716e1fd2f1c56030972e30/src/router.cpp#L437
That's why you cannot send replies to a client with same identity.
On Fri, Feb 7,
Yes, when B is run again, it creates a new bind socket. A's connect
socket will then reconnect to it. B does not care what the identity is
of A's socket, so I think this is not a problem. For example, I can
restart A repeatedly and all is fine.
On 02/07/2014 01:06 PM, Ahmet Kakıcı wrote:
I
I did not quite get the problem but could this be because (I think) router
is not able to route messages to socket from which it has not reveived data
first...
7.2.2014 22.51 kirjoitti Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com:
Hi,
1) ROUTER in program A is set to connect to a bind socket in program
It is my understanding that being able to route requires the socket to
have an identity mapping in its routing table for the peer.
For peers that do not explicitly specify their own identity, then I
believe you are correct that routing is not possible until at least one
message has been
Here's some small sample code to reproduce the issue:
https://gist.github.com/jkarneges/ab2b1abea1ee4cfc1332
A (ztest1.py) creates REQ and ROUTER sockets. B (ztest2.py) creates REP
and ROUTER sockets. B binds and provides a random identity to its ROUTER
socket. A connects its sockets to B. A
15 matches
Mail list logo
