[Ns-developers] Requesting help for csma promiscuous mode

[Gustavo Carneiro]

2008/7/10 Gustavo Carneiro <gjcarneiro at gmail.com>:

>
>
> 2008/7/10 <craigdo at ee.washington.edu>:
>
>
>> > >   1- Separate promiscuous receive callback, with or without
>> > "promiscuous
>> > > mode" (though I don't see the point of it);
>> > >
>> > >   2- Single receive callback, but always in promiscuous mode and
>> > > PacketType to make filtering easy;
>> > >
>> > > I strongly advise against:
>> > >
>> > >   3- Single receive callback _and_ promiscuous mode on/off switch.
>> > >
>> > > In either case, a quick final decision about this would be greatly
>> > > appreciated.  If deciding for 1, please also advise on whether full
>> > > backward API compatibility is desired or not.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Gustavo, sorry about the unclear decision process on this one.  This
>> > should be decided ideally by the src/node module maintainer, but that
>> > position is vacant at the moment.  I'd like to update the maintainers
>> > list soon to cover the whole codebase.  For now, I'd like to delegate
>> > this one to Craig.
>>
>> Craig thinks 1 without promiscuous mode switch.
>>
>
> Thank you for deciding  :-)
>
> Now one more question.  So we will have two callbacks from NetDevice to
> Node.  How do you want to handle Node::AddProtocolHandler and promiscuous
> mode:
>
>    1- Node::AddProtocolHandler (callback1) and
> Node::AddPromiscuousProtocolHandler (callback2), each with different
> callback signatures;
>
>    2- Single Node::AddProtocolHandler (promiscuousMode=false, callback),
> with changes in callback signature;
>

This is still pending.  Awaiting a decision from Craig before proceeding.

-- 
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
INESC Porto, Telecommunications and Multimedia Unit
"The universe is always one step beyond logic." -- Frank Herbert