Conversation
|
Ok, I found now some hints on why this is not working:
|
|
So the idea is that a cllient would connect to the proxy via CoAP and the proxy would forward the connection via CoAPs to the server that it proxies for? That is exactly what we need 😃 |
The main idea is to have a CoAPS connection at both ends, but yes, in theory it should also work that you have a (unsecure) CoAP connection at one end and a secure CoAPS connection at the other. |
|
Maybe the problem above might not be an issue for this use case, but until it is resolved, this can't be merged of course. |
|
I'm afraid I figured out why this does not work: In That means the event handler will never¹ be executed as [1] it will be executed after the timeout, but then it's too late |
|
Yes, that exactly the conclusion I came to in July according to my comment. |
def4718 to
78154e3
Compare
|
@mariemC want to give this a try? |
562f347 to
8181e26
Compare
|
Just noticed that I forgot about the new dependency to |
|
We need to add DTLS capability to the gcoap example client, don`t we? |
|
|
I see what is done in the |
|
So I have tested the PR! and it works fine with Fabian's patch (in the comments he wrote) I also set |
|
Hey! Just to let you both know: I won't be able to work on this until June 15th. But afterwards, I will review and, if applicable, apply all the patches you provide :-) |
|
Can we close this now that #20454 is merged? |
Huh? |
8181e26 to
194e676
Compare
|
Rebased and finally addressed @fabian18's comments. |
Since |
Contribution description
Allows to deploy the forward proxy using CoAPS / proxying a CoAPS connection.
Testing procedure
Still needs some work, currently, the proxy reports a Bad Option error, when used with CoAPS...
Issues/PRs references
None