View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002727 | unreal | ircd | public | 2005-12-26 00:32 | 2006-04-27 19:00 |
| Reporter | pepolez | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Product Version | 3.2.4 | ||||
| Summary | 0002727: redundant linking? | ||||
| Description | just wondered if there was any chance of introduction of redundant style linking. the basic idea being that a server can be linked to a network via more then one server, thus making the link more redundant. in this case, if the server splits from one of the two (or more) servers it is linked to, the server will still be connected to the network via another server, thus a highly redundant link structure. although this wouldnt help with complete disconnections from the internet of a server, it would help on links with latency issues where the server is connected to the internet but simply experiences high latency. judging by the relative complexity of this, it is likely that the feature would need to be included in the core rather then a module. | ||||
| Steps To Reproduce | lots of complex coding and annoying testing? | ||||
| Additional Information | an example: lets say we have 3 servers, server A, B and C. server B is linked to server A as well as server C (at the same time), server A is linked to server C directly as well forming a 'triangle' of servers. the latency from server B to server C suddenly goes up, causing server B to split off server C. now, since server B is still linked to server A, server B is still connected to the rest of the network and the users on it dont have to wait for server B to reconnect to server C before they can chat with users on server A and server C. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
This has been discussed multiple times before. The answer is no. The IRC RFC is not compatable with such linking styles, and this would break so many things. |
|
|
ok, a bit disappointing, but i'll live. thanks for the response :) |
|
|
I like this idea but it looks like a headache to implement. Coders, is this on the drawing board for 4.*? We can probably close this bugreport |
|
|
We know that it violates RFC, but it is no less a good idea. I just hope it doesn't become an m:n worst case (aka we should be able to choose what servers link to what). It will require modifying the server protocol severely, such that it will be barely recognizable as IRC. likely also require larger 'packet' sizes. I propose 1000 or 1400 (to fit in a standard 1492/1500 MTU). Client protocol can remain the same, tho that needs some reworking too tbh. |
|
|
sorry, this won't be done for Unreal3*. additionally, the IRC protocol introduces problems that prevents things from working ok anyway (no I don't mean RFC, just.. real life situations). |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-12-26 00:32 | pepolez | New Issue | |
| 2005-12-26 01:29 | Stealth | Note Added: 0010892 | |
| 2005-12-26 06:48 | pepolez | Note Added: 0010894 | |
| 2006-04-13 21:59 | Zell | Note Added: 0011553 | |
| 2006-04-14 13:31 | tabrisnet | Note Added: 0011556 | |
| 2006-04-27 19:00 | syzop | Status | new => closed |
| 2006-04-27 19:00 | syzop | Note Added: 0011627 | |
| 2006-04-27 19:00 | syzop | Resolution | open => no change required |
