text-plain.eml

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: by 10.221.16.198 with SMTP id pz6csp61182vcb;
        Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.14.104.135 with SMTP id i7mr1211917eeg.34.1397554433939;
        Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from smtp.imatix.com (smtp.imatix.com. [62.176.169.64])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l41si24652559eef.278.2014.04.15.02.33.53
        for <multiple recipients>;
        Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 62.176.169.64 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) client-ip=62.176.169.64;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=neutral (google.com: 62.176.169.64 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) [email protected]
Received: from svpublic.imatix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp.imatix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D296CABADF;
	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:33:49 +0200 (CEST)
X-Original-To: [email protected]
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.17.11])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by smtp.imatix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8FA3CAA666
	for <[email protected]>;
	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:33:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from frosties.localnet ([78.43.112.216]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb004)
	with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MNx4F-1Wczsm11jv-007Ygj for
	<[email protected]>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:33:39 +0200
Received: from mrvn by frosties.localnet with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>) id 1WZzkI-0003A0-KY
	for [email protected]; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:33:38 +0200
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:33:38 +0200
From: Goswin von Brederlow <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <20140415093338.GE10918@frosties>
References: <[email protected]>
	<CADL5_sgAaFsmaAwYeArKWw+ukQXzX__iQKujOzGjiStPy217vA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CADL5_sik1s7JfNZ_7=2OAKMwD1MqJCz2YFnis=vMQb4Bpu45Tw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADL5_sik1s7JfNZ_7=2OAKMwD1MqJCz2YFnis=vMQb4Bpu45Tw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:cgc2h/pS0U34rBqg7wOqzlLGOAJepkVLkRl83NiwOEZ2xgVRhkP
	AIW3XX7qUX3C+ZjdmTYaG1l3Te8ae+qnOcMNN0Y1yepJrRVTpOkWn/e8RIAz5tDDd+kF5Jw
	63f2Ik4BPPo5fr7Nl0HZ1K3BrjyimBC/OmK7Vl4Ej27Ae0OAAYhtyhccsCk5Op7r+m14Bmd
	4bCO0JfdPgFcfuZhMmMpg==
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
	autolearn=failed version=3.2.3
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on svpublic.imatix.com
Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] Can a pub-sub endpoint have multiple publishers?
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ZeroMQ development list <[email protected]>
List-Id: ZeroMQ development list <zeromq-dev.lists.zeromq.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [email protected]
Errors-To: [email protected]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:19:40PM +0200, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> Looking at the ZMQ code will not help you do what you need, though it
> may be useful for other reasons.
> 
> First off, the rules are different if you're using a TCP based pub-sub
> model, vs. a multicast model like PGM (or NORM, I think, but am not
> familiar with that yet).
> 
> Second, if you use e.g. PGM then yes, you can clearly do N-to-N
> publish-subscribe using a single endpoint. Your switch is acting as
> the equivalent of a broker.

Let me see if I got this right (and to summary the thread):

For PGM each node would bind a PUB socket to a predefined multicast
IP:port. Further each node would connect a SUB socket to the same
IP:port. And then any message send to the PUB socket by any node would
reach every other node. Right?

Does that work with EPGM over udp too?

> If you do not want to use a broker and you are using TCP then you can
> interconnect subscribers and publishers. That's doable and fair and
> fast enough.

For TCP binding one PUB socket per node and connecting one SUB socket
per node to every PUB socket is allowed (or vice versa). The only
problem there is managing / detecting all those PUB/SUB sockets to
connect to. So unless the list of nodes is known by all beforehand
some broker is needed.

MfG
	Goswin
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev