Re: [dcdev] adc
Todd Pederzani
2004-01-23 5:26
Direct Connect developers

Fredrik Tolf wrote:

That was what I was referring to. And I don't think anyone said that
the current protocol was perfect.

Oh, certainly not.  But hubs can protect against *some of it* - witness the hubs that need the NatUsers script (or other exemptions for people with legitimate wrong-ips in various protocol commands).

In any case, I don't really know why I even followed up on the DoS
matter. The thing that I really don't agree with about ADC is the fact
that such a command division isn't actually necessary. I believe that
all commands should be clearly defined, and those that are broadcasted
should be specified in such a way that allows for easy future
extension of those commands.

True, this is a better argument than a half-hearted DC-client-as-ddos-tool argument (but that should be a topic of discussion at some point - how to handle "evilness" in the network).

For me, ADC makes sense:   The simplicity of, more or less, being able to write a hub that consists of a switch statement is appealing.  So is the ability add arbitrary broadcast and directed commands.  Users want a lot of things, and all of them won't be covered by any single protocol we accept.  If a new directed command is needed (say, for client to client cctp), making its function dependent upon what (adc or dolda-connect compliant) hubsoft the clients are attached to is just plain unacceptable - it's the same situation we have now.

- Todd
DC Developers mailinglist