e isp was cooperative all of the ip's allocated to a user could be
on very different reverse dns hostnames which could be a real pain for
channel operators
From: bas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] a few ideas
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:06:19 +0
peter green wrote:
>
> i said end site not end user
>
> in other words a home connection will likely get a /48
> so will a large university site
>
it's likely that a large university, like an ISP, gets more than a /48.
i said end site not end user
in other words a home connection will likely get a /48
so will a large university site
If every end user were allocated a /48, clone control would not be a big
problem: just ignore the last 48 bits of the address. The harder problem
is that some end users are allocate
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, peter green wrote:
> would it not be easier to have a single codebase and have each network
> #define out the features they don't require rather than everyone haveing to
> make a patch work against a radically changed codebase
Kev weighed in with the Undernet viewpoint on thi
> > RFC specifies "\r\n", the original code base does "\r\n", clients have a
> > right to expect "\r\n", and it simplifies buffer size calculations.
> > However, at some point I hope to change the server-server protocol to a
> > binary protocol. This obviously would not extend to clients except
>
> > and for that matter why does it send crlf instead of just lf on
> > server-server links this is also a waste of bandwidth and afaict no p10
> > implementation minds being sent just lf
>
> RFC specifies "\r\n", the original code base does "\r\n", clients have a
> right to expect "\r\n", and it
> Undernet prides itself on being as RFC1459 compatible as possible, RFC1459
> requires the : before the last parameter, therefore any clients not liking
> it are obviously not following the protocol.
This is an incorrect interpretation of the RFC. The RFC specifies that the
last parameter MAY b
> firstly as most of you are no doubt aware 4 of the worlds 6 largest irc
> networks are running p10 ircd's
>
> would it not be easier to have a single codebase and have each network
> #define out the features they don't require rather than everyone haveing to
> make a patch work against a rad
Undernet prides itself on being as RFC1459 compatible as possible, RFC1459
requires the : before the last parameter, therefore any clients not liking
it are obviously not following the protocol.
This is probably the same for the CRLF issue you mentioned. (it's been a
while since I read the RFC)
P
firstly as most of you are no doubt aware 4 of the worlds 6 largest irc
networks are running p10 ircd's
would it not be easier to have a single codebase and have each network
#define out the features they don't require rather than everyone haveing to
make a patch work against a radically change
10 matches
Mail list logo
