What should I do if I want to change the delivery protocol depending on the node such as SpW to the node that is fixed to Epidemic as the node that runs with one-simulator?thank you.
You can't currently change the routing protocol on the fly but you can set the routing module per node group in the configuration for the duration of the simulation. But note that not all routing modules are compatible with each other (e.g., MaxProp works only with other MaxProp routers).
Related
How do we get the node information from falco threats events response. According to current supported fields for conditions we do not get any information regarding the node name as such.
https://falco.org/docs/rules/supported-fields/
For Falco to detect threats by using syscalls, it needs to run on the same host where the processes executing the syscalls run. Therefore it doesn't make sense to return information about the hostname since this information is only relevant when all the alerts are aggregated into some external service. In other words, it's the aggregator that adds the origin of the message when received.
However, if what you need to do is to distinguish whether the syscall was executed from inside a container, or from another process on the host, look at the container.id field. If it's set to host, the call didn't happen inside the container.
Suppose I have the following supply chain model see model model1
Agents are communicating with each other through a defined network and send messages to each other through ports. for example, demand is generated for customers through their ports and send as "orders" upstream to facilities. Upstream facilities send "shipments" to downstream facilities
and stats are collected at each node.
The model seems to work for 2 echelons but when one facility is connected to two facilities downstream as desired I get the following error "Agent can't be in several flowcharts at the time. At least two flowchart blocks are in conflict" see error. Based on the description it seems the agent "shipment" is sent to two facilities at the same time.
My question is how could I avoid this conflict?
more information about each node:
Agents' "orders" enter through each node's port and are capture as Enter. take(msg), follow a flowchart, and exit as Agent "shipment" to each destination. Each agent "order" has a double amount and port destination. see facility node
any suggestions please?
You must make sure that you do not send agents into a flowchart that is already in another flow chart, correct. This is bad model design.
One way to debug and find the root issue: before sending any message agent, check currentBlock()!=null and traceln the agent and the block. Also pause the model.
You can then see where you want to (re)send that agent that is already in some other flowchart block.
You probably send message agents out that are still somewhere else.
PS: For messages, you probably do not want to use flow charts at all but normal message passing. This avoids these pains here as you can easily send the same message to several agents. Check how message passing is done in the example agent models
I am trying understand LoRA and LoRaWAN technologies.
I want to establish comunication between my end nodes and gateway and I want gateways communicate own non-LoRaWAN server.
What shold be rules? For exmaple; Must uplink/donwnlink count per day, duty cycle etc. comply with ETSI EU863-870 or LoRaWAN-allinace?
Basically after a device has joined a network it has liberty to send or receive telegrams at its own time frames. The receive windows of the end nodes differ depending on the class type.
With respect to rules:
All end nodes should adhere to 1% duty cycle.
The regional specifications can give you more insights into the rules. You can find the information here - https://lora-alliance.org/resource_hub/rp2-101-lorawan-regional-parameters-2/
I have trouble with establishing asynchronous point to point channel using ZeroMQ.
My approach to build point to point channel was that it generates as many ZMQ_PAIR sockets as possible up to the number of peers in the network. Because ZMQ_PAIR socket ensures an exclusive connection between two peers, it needs the same number of peers. My first attempt is realized as the following diagram that represents paring connections between two peers.
But the problem of the above approach is the fact that each pairing socket needs a distinct bind address. For example, if four peers are in the network, then each peer should have at least three ( TCP ) address to bind the rest of peers, which is very unrealistic and inefficient.
( I assume that peer has exactly one unique address among others. Ex. tcp://*:5555 )
It seems that there is no way other than using different patterns, which contain some set of message brokers, such as XREQ/XREP.
( I intentionally avoid broker based approach, because my application will heavily exchange message between peers, which it will often result in performance bottleneck at the broker processes. )
But I wonder that if there is anybody who uses ZMQ_PAIR socket to efficiently build point to point channel? Or is there a way to bypass to have distinct host IP addresses for multiple ZMQ_PAIR sockets to bind?
Q: How to effectively establish ... well,
Given the above narrative, the story of "How to effectively ..." ( where a metric of what and how actually measures the desired effectivity may get some further clarification later ), turns into another question - "Can we re-factor the ZeroMQ Signalling / Messaging infrastructure, so as to work without using as many IP-addresses:port#-s as would the tcp://-transport-class based topology actually need?"
Upon an explicitly expressed limit of having not more than a just one IP:PORT# per host/node ( being thus the architecture's / desing's the very, if not the most expensive resource ) one will have to overcome a lot troubles on such a way forward.
It is fair to note, that any such attempt will come at an extra cost to be paid. There will not be any magic wand to "bypass" such a principal limit expressed above. So get ready to indeed pay the costs.
It reminds me one Project in TELCO, where a distributed-system was operated in a similar manner with a similar original motivation. Each node had an ssh/sshd service setup, where local-port forwarding enabled to expose a just one publicly accessible IP:PORT# access-point and all the rest was implemented "inside" a mesh of all the topological links going through ssh-tunnels not just because the encryption service, but right due to the comfort of having the ability to maintain all the local-port-forwarding towards specific remote-ports as a means of how to setup and operate such exclusive peer-to-peer links between all the service-nodes, yet having just a single public access IP:PORT# per node.
If no other approach will seem feasible ( PUB/SUB being evicted for either traffic actually flowing to each terminal node in cases of older ZeroMQ/API versions, where Topic-filtering gets processed but on the SUB-side, which both security and network Departments will not like to support, or for concentrated workloads and immense resources needs on PUB-side, in cases of newer ZeroMQ/API versions, where Topic-filter is being processed on the sender's side. Adressing, dynamic network peer (re-)discovery, maintenance, resources planning, fault resilience, ..., yes, not any easy shortcut seems to be anywhere near to just grab and (re-)use ) the above mentioned "stone-age" ssh/sshd-port-forwarding with ZeroMQ, running against such local-ports only, may save you.
Anyway - Good Luck on the hunt!
I know, that if I use a consistent hashing group router, it will always rout to the same registered routees.
So I wrote my application, with a few routees on there own routee-nodes and a public-node with a router, which is reachable by the client.
If the client sends a message it is routed as it should be and it works fine.
Now what I want to do is, add more public-nodes with thier own router that provides the same sending/routing behavior as every other public-node.
What I mean is, that it should not matter if a client sends message XYZ to public-node A, B or C. It should always go to the same routee-node.
At first I thought that akka may provides this behavior by default, because:
I used a group and not a pool router, so everyone knows the same routees
I leared that cluster nodes could be ordered
So I assumed that the routees list is ordered and the different routers map the same keys to the same routees. But testing showed me that I was wrong.
So, is there way in akka to achieve this behavior? Thanks.
As I expected, this behavior shoud be the standart for consistent hashing group routers and it is a bug in the akka-cluster package (current version 2.3.0-RC1)
See this tickt and this google-group post for more details.