From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([209.87.249.19]:52122 "EHLO tuna.sandelman.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751757AbdKKSx3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Nov 2017 13:53:29 -0500 From: Michael Richardson Subject: Re: Bridging a lowpan interface In-Reply-To: References: <1BB434E6-8E27-4282-84FE-4CC88C48ED68@ntnu.no> <730.1510335972@obiwan.sandelman.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 13:53:27 -0500 Message-ID: <22033.1510426407@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Sender: linux-wpan-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Palma Cc: linux-wpan - ML --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain David Palma 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? What kind of breaking are you speaking of? -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAloHRyYACgkQgItw+93Q 3WXJlQf/QJt13v1mHAS5UWEpYWIWnR/3arR/Pq/x/RTEJPn28BLd5+7BD3fOGKRp OrdZGywgiv0HQbiCcxi0hpqX36AGU0/BW8Gx26Q8d+4G8AkIq7awUaZO8PyLam6A 4jLsDtDg+QddHqi3oEcAOU4vsP4Nq6/egVMEmpAyoePWNOjntDBfUnfFO/LJpWBG g3IiyhranT0aDgjoeBd6dsYBbNido5Tz4r1cqW3BVqBTHYvnxoVnjIiShN8Z9Y54 xiWFuBUaOJ3FTb7A6dPsgqOvb0wXDdqa6SwBf8YF3YPVzvkwjmbz7Y68PEhpxvKx YbAWL8Gcg3L0Em48iBwkRU+P8Fsd/w== =cBjF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--