|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | flag needed in an internet node to distinguish routers from hosts | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | ns-3 | Reporter: | Tom Henderson <tomh> |
| Component: | routing | Assignee: | Tom Henderson <tomh> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | minor | CC: | craigdo, mathieu.lacage, ns-bugs |
| Priority: | P2 | ||
| Version: | ns-3-dev | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 384 | ||
| Attachments: |
tested patch
additional patch for global routing |
||
sliding to ns-3.5 Created attachment 483 [details]
tested patch
Passing this to release mgr. for consideration; note that it extends the Ipv4 API. I tested this on some example scripts; both the operation of the attribute and some of the underlying SetForwarding() calls.
Created attachment 484 [details]
additional patch for global routing
This patch updates global routing to be aware of this interface state and disable the advertisement of links for which forwarding is disabled. Should be applied on top of previous patch.
changeset 0e15594f67f3 |
discussion from the list: >> - whether to add some kind of flag in an InternetNode that is equivalent >> >> to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward , so that every InternetNode is not >> >> necessarily a router. > > > >What is the use-case for that ? Is it not enough to not create a > >forwarding table for that node ? If not, I suspect that we could > >trivially add: > > > >Ipv4::EnableForwarding () > >Ipv4::DisableForwarding () > >Ipv4::IsForwardingEnabled () > > > > Issue left for further study.