> On 11 Nov 2017, at 19:53, Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > David Palma <david.palma@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'm all for routing and starting with RPL is fine. However, the idea >> was also to enable traffic differentiation based on flows (the SDN >> part), without breaking them, and not only based on IP >> addresses. That's why I mentioned that I used routing and ip6tables. > > I don't understand what the problem is. > What would you do with bridged interfaces in an SDN? For example, if you use Open vSwitch for the SDN part, you add an interface to a bridge and manage flows from there. > What kind of breaking are you speaking of? By breaking I mean, for example: - establish a CoAP transaction with DTLS through one interface/network (e.g. .11, fd03::120) - redirect the traffic to another interface/network (e.g. 15.4, fe80::ff:fe00:beef) - a new transaction will be created on the CoAP server, it will expect a DTLS handshake, it will timeout because the client is not expecting a new transaction. I guess this could happen in other scenarios too, but I could be wrong. My approach to this is re-writing the sources and destinations at the edges, per flow (using Ip6tables for the time being). What I thought was that if the 8/2 byte addresses were converted to 6 byte addresses one could just use Open vSwitch/bridges/etc. -- David http://dpalma.eu > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ > ] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
