[ndnSIM] Using ndn::Face in ndnSIM environment.

[Anil Jangam]

Hi Spyros,

My current application implementation does have its own face and thats the
only 'face' it has. I am trying to understand the scenario, which Junxiao
has addressed in this comment. Let me add more to what he has said.

Hi Junxiao,

I agree and to clear the ambiguity, lets say, the "application" is the
(class) which derives from "class MyApp : public Application" or from "class
MyApp : public App". Now there are two nodes (node-A) and node (node-B)
with 'MyApp' installed on it. So if I understood you correctly, its better
using different faces from each 'module' interacting with other 'module'
within same application or with another application altogether (its rather
more important when they are using overlapping name prefixes). I guess we
do not capture this aspect in the porting guide and perhaps worthwhile to
mention it. Can you please check?

Thanks for your help!

/anil.




On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Junxiao Shi <shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Anil
>
> The technical difference between using one face or two faces is whether a
> piece of code would possibly receive packets from another piece of code.
> Although ndn-cxx Face has an “internal FIB” and an “internal PIT”, it is
> not a forwarder and does not forward packets internally between different
> calling modules.
>
> Suppose there are two application modules using ndn-cxx Face(s); note that
> I’m not specifying whether these two modules belong to the same
> “application” or not because the definition of “application” can be
> ambiguous. The first module is a producer which sets an InterestFilter for
> prefix /A, and the second module is a consumer that expresses an Interest
> for prefix /A/1.
> If these two modules are using the same ndn-cxx Face, the Interest from
> the consumer module will not reach the producer module; if they use
> different ndn-cxx Faces, the Interest from the consumer module will reach
> the producer module.
>
> Yours, Junxiao
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 4:26 PM, Spyridon (Spyros) Mastorakis <
> mastorakis at CS.UCLA.EDU> wrote:
>
> my opinion is that each application should have its own face.
>
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Anil Jangam <anilj.mailing at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So as long the 'RealApp' is using this 'm_faceConsumer' to register the
> prefixes, it will be receiving all those Interests/Data packets. Do we have
> to explicitly create another face i.e. 'ndn::Face m_faceProducer' to
> sending out the Interest/Data traffic out from the application?
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/ndnsim/attachments/20161020/4e2fa2ee/attachment.html>