> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 17:24 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> > I've been thinking about doing exactly this after I've been knee-deep
>> > in the DNS code.
>> > It may not be a bad idea to have generic udp/tcp incoming/outgoing
>> > addresses which can then be over-ridden per-"protocol".
>> >
>>
>> WTF? We discussed this months ago and came to the conclusion it would be
>> good to have a two layered outgoing address/port assignment.
>>
>> a) base default of random system-assigned outbound address port.
>>
>> b) override per-component/protocol in/out bound address/port with
>> individual config options.
>
> No need to panic! Looks like everybody is on the same page and it does
> not really matter how many times that same page gets written :-). Start
> a Feature page, perhaps?
Nah, no need I think. We are still waiting on an actual need for the (b)
layer options. But if Adrian has found a need then its worth reminding
about the behavior.
Amos
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex.
> P.S. My fix is unrelated to all of that. It was just a typo bug.
>
>
>> > 2008/9/9 Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>:
>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> revno: 9176
>> >>> committer: Alex Rousskov <rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com>
>> >>> branch nick: trunk
>> >>> timestamp: Mon 2008-09-08 17:52:06 -0600
>> >>> message:
>> >>> Fixed typo: Config.Addrs.udp_outgoing was used for the HTCP
>> incoming
>> >>> address.
>> >>> modified:
>> >>> src/htcp.cc
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I think this is one of those cleanup situations where we wanted to
>> split
>> >> the protocol away from generic udp_*_address and make it an
>> >> htcp_outgoing_address. Yes?
>> >>
>> >> Amos
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
Received on Tue Sep 09 2008 - 06:04:04 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Sep 09 2008 - 12:00:04 MDT