Re: [zeromq-dev] Is there a reasonable way to use an existing PKI and D/TLS with 0MQ?

Hi John, One cool thing about Curve25519 is that, given the secret key, the public key can be derived from it. And it seems that you actually you can use random bytes for the secret key (almost). Only a few bits in the first and last byte are fixed. Here an excerpt from [1]: > Computing

[zeromq-dev] Bidirectional Async Over TCP Without Multiple Binds

What do would be an appropriate pattern to achieve bidirectional, asynchronous messages between two nodes over TCP transport without binding more than one TCP port? The two nodes would be in different processes at least and possibly on different machines. I can imagine that a pair of PUSH->PULL

Re: [zeromq-dev] Is there a reasonable way to use an existing PKI and D/TLS with 0MQ?

On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 00:17 -0500, John Lane Schultz wrote: > Hi Luca, > > Thanks for the update.  I was holding out hope that someone might > have taken a crack at it already. > > Yes, TLS is a pretty complicated protocol that supports tons of > different cipher suites and options.  I certainly

Re: [zeromq-dev] Bidirectional Async Over TCP Without Multiple Binds

You would most likely use a ZMQ_ROUTER socket on both ends: Summary of ZMQ_ROUTER characteristics: Compatible peer sockets ZMQ_DEALER, ZMQ_REQ, ZMQ_ROUTER Direction Bidirectional On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Jake wrote: > What do would be an appropriate pattern to

Re: [zeromq-dev] Bidirectional Async Over TCP Without Multiple Binds

Hi Not sure why Justin suggested using a ROUTER-Socket on each side. I think having the A node bind a ROUTER socket and each B node connect using a DEALER socket is enough. One single TCP port would have to be bound. The ROUTER socket on the A node is needed to distinguish between the

Re: [zeromq-dev] Bidirectional Async Over TCP Without Multiple Binds

Hi Jake In fact, most ZMQ socket types do some sort of load balancing when connected with multiple other sockets. See [1], especially the "Outgoing routing strategy" and "Incoming routing strategy" in the table for each socket type. TL;DR if the socket allows receiving messages and is

Re: [zeromq-dev] Bidirectional Async Over TCP Without Multiple Binds

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Patrik VV. wrote: > Hi > > Not sure why Justin suggested using a ROUTER-Socket on each side. Ah yes, I misread the original message. For "one-to-many" you would use router-dealer. router+router would be more for many-to-many where each node

Re: [zeromq-dev] Is there a reasonable way to use an existing PKI and D/TLS with 0MQ?

That’s very cool that (almost) any random number can be used for the private key and the public key can be easily derived from the private one! See? I am quite clueless about the details of ECC. ;) John On Feb 14, 2018, at 4:05 AM, paddor wrote: Hi John, One cool thing

Re: [zeromq-dev] Bidirectional Async Over TCP Without Multiple Binds

Isn't ROUTER-DEALER load balancing though? I've used it in a REQ-ROUTER-DEALER-REP set up but in that case the REQ -> ROUTER send does not target a particular handler on the other side, it just goes to an arbitrary one and the ROUTER makes sure the reply goes back to the original sender. How

Re: [zeromq-dev] Bidirectional Async Over TCP Without Multiple Binds

Ok, thanks for the explanation and doc reference. My A node spawns the B nodes in the first place, so I guess I can either (1) assign the identity out-of-band at spawn time and have the B use it, or (2) have B handshake once at start up to allow A to associate the zmq-assigned identity. After

Re: [zeromq-dev] Bidirectional Async Over TCP Without Multiple Binds

Ah right, I guess there will be a ZMQ-assigned identity if you don't set one. Wasn't able to find that in the docs right away though. I found it in the ZGuide now though. Seems like the ROUTER itself will invent those for each connected socket that doesn't announce its own identity. Happy