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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
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
Message-ID: <CANEZrP245242JYDBBo72XVmKgEBO96QPjcJi8Jy2Dm_r90n1Bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd6c4e47499cf05001b4807
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_EXT_SERVICES and advertising related
	services
Precedence: list

--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 &quot;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&#39;s &gt;1 &quot;ext service&quot; 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&#39;t see much reason to take a potentially large=
 performance hit when there&#39;s a service advertisement mechanism that al=
ready works. What&#39;s wrong with the existing mechanism exactly?</div>
</div></div></div>

--047d7bd6c4e47499cf05001b4807--