1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1XFgyz-00036M-Fm
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:01:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.218.43 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.218.43; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oi0-f43.google.com;
Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com ([209.85.218.43])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XFgyy-0001As-O6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:01:09 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f43.google.com with SMTP id u20so3544073oif.16
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 03:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.159.232 with SMTP id xf8mr29163952oeb.16.1407492063269;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 03:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 03:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJD+9qpwFcVfHOCCsFYjmk7A0V=65vG-7jJ6D7jj4Pi_7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0Ok6s5xQcMSeLa69adLBXEaicuXqcg45eZrwYtVFbx-dA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2wYcxJhxRRa86Nm9ENtK2SA5VNG-L7f5pHb_W=Ajcj5Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJD+9qpwFcVfHOCCsFYjmk7A0V=65vG-7jJ6D7jj4Pi_7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 12:01:03 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: RsrthQXdqOPxew1G-SE_rfWYIHQ
Message-ID: <CANEZrP245242JYDBBo72XVmKgEBO96QPjcJi8Jy2Dm_r90n1Bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd6c4e47499cf05001b4807
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1XFgyy-0001As-O6
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_EXT_SERVICES and advertising related
services
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:01:09 -0000
--047d7bd6c4e47499cf05001b4807
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> He wants to use it to advertise services that are not part of the P2P
> protocol itself, but run on a different port. Reserving services bits
> for those is not acceptable.
>
Why not? Does the port matter much?
> All the NODE_EXT_SERVICES bit does is advertise the P2P "getextsrv"
> command to get information, such as the port to connect on, for the
> auxilary service.
Yes, I understand what it does, but from a clients perspective what it
means is if someone implements a useful service and exposes it this way you
have to seek out, connect to and interrogate every possible server even if
(say) only a handful actually provide it. The most there's >1 "ext service"
the protocol becomes extremely slow, vs service bits where you can download
addr packets and see which IPs are advertising which services.
I don't see much reason to take a potentially large performance hit when
there's a service advertisement mechanism that already works. What's wrong
with the existing mechanism exactly?
--047d7bd6c4e47499cf05001b4807
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><span st=
yle=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">He wants to use it to advertise services that a=
re not part of the P2P</span><br>
</div></div>
protocol itself, but run on a different port. Reserving services bits<br>
for those is not acceptable.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why not? D=
oes the port matter much?</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex">
All the NODE_EXT_SERVICES bit does is advertise the P2P "getextsrv&quo=
t;<br>
command to get information, such as the port to connect on, for the<br>
auxilary service.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I understand what it=
does, but from a clients perspective what it means is if someone implement=
s a useful service and exposes it this way you have to seek out, connect to=
and interrogate every possible server even if (say) only a handful actuall=
y provide it. The most there's >1 "ext service" the protoc=
ol becomes extremely slow, vs service bits where you can download addr pack=
ets and see which IPs are advertising which services.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>I don't see much reason to take a potentially large=
performance hit when there's a service advertisement mechanism that al=
ready works. What's wrong with the existing mechanism exactly?</div>
</div></div></div>
--047d7bd6c4e47499cf05001b4807--
|
