Skip to main content

difference between and on Pipe Resolver Message

2 replies [Last post]
Joined: 2007-08-31


Reading the specification, I found the descriptions of and on Pipe Resolver Message.

A peer id. In Queries, if present, it specifies the Peer ID of the only peer from which responses will be expected. Responses from all other peers may be ignored. This does not guarantee a response to the pipe binding request will be made by the peer. Response to pipe binding requests is always optional.

Peer Advertisement of the peer which resolved the Input Pipe. This peer may appear in the list of peer ids on which the Input Pipe is bound, but this should not be assumed.

Originally, for me, looks like a optional redundancy of the .

But later I think of as the Peer that discover the input pipes, even if they were found on other peers, like in the attached image. I other words, is not necessarily the peer where the pipe where found, but the peer who found if. Is this thinking right ?

In the image example, this would be correct in the answer ?

Peer3ID, Peer4ID -- the peers that have the pipe as an input pipe

Peer2ID -- the peers that found the pipes

Reply viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Joined: 2007-03-21

The PeerAdv describes the peer. It is necessary for a peer. If peer1 hopes to communicate with Peer2, Peer1 must have Peer2' adv. This is my understanding.

Joined: 2007-08-21

In my understanding....if peer1 want to communicate with peer2...peer1 must have the same pipe advertisement that the peer2 have...