> On 09 Sep 2015, at 16:49, Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org> wrote: > > On 09/09/2015 04:41 PM, Gianfranco Casanova wrote: >> Even having the configuration of Session overwriting the ConnMan, >> which is the order that has to be considered by the ConnMan for the >> AllowedBarer? >> I do not see any PRIO in the policy file, I’m right? > > As I said this was left out on purpose. The session_policy_local.c > plugin is only providing basic functionality.
Hi Daniel, I understand that is left out, no problem for me, I’m trying to understand some architectural choices and limitations. > >> If the two routes are present and a session connect is required >> (online the one with less PRIO from AllowedBarer point of view), >> what’s happen? > > There are many good questions how to handle such situations. Just to be clear this means that the AllowedBeared written in the Policy Files have no priority, all are at the same level i.e.: if a User can go in internet via the two routes, the one marked OnLine is chosen by ConnMan to route the packages. > If you have > a real product in mind you can probably easy tell. What I can say is that up to now on our product we’d have the ConnMan managing the two routes in an equal manner and just routing par application. > Finding a generic > solution is a bit harder. That's why we have the session plugins. _______________________________________________ connman mailing list connman@connman.net https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
