Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
|
The main issue I see is that the CLIENT_BASE would need to somehow query the CLIENT ahead of time to check if they share the same private channel. This would have to be done during outgoing traffic and list of routable nodes stored on the CLIENT_BASE. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Why not add a new type of favorite. Rather than just a flag that determines if a node is favorited, a multi-bit field can be used instead. This would allow for favorite types. One value could be the standard favorite and another could be CLIENT_BASE routing favorite. This could be used for routers and repeaters as well, with their own types of favorites for long distance routing, other routers, repeaters, etc. Using a bit masked field, a device could be multiple types of favorites. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Platform
Cross-Platform
Description
Currently, CLIENT_BASE uses the Favorite flag to set allowed nodes for routing.
This has disadvantages:
To solve all those issues, I have a proposal:
Abandon node Favouriting.
Instead, use a common private channel as a proxy for determining which nodes should be preferred for routing.
To avoid prioritizing traffic of nearby friends/neighbors in different buildings with whom we have private channels, only channels with specific names would be considered.
A list of these name templates would be stored in the firmware (grouped for clarity), e.g.:
HOME,Home,homeBuilding*,BUILDING*, etc*_base,*_localThe good thing is that your nodes and your attic node probably already share a private channel. In that case, the only administrative task after this change would be to rename those channels as suggested ^.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions