I fully support Steve's proposal. We had a six station Writelog
installation running on Field Day and found that the NetDDE interface to
be totally unreliable. It failed at least 5 times during field day.
Each machine needed to be rebooted (restarting NetDDE SSDM did not
help). The web application is nice, but uses a number of technologies
that would make a server environment even more complicated and harder to
maintain - especially for an operator who's first job isn't IT. Using
an IP port is simple, relatively easy to program, and very robust in a
networking environment.
------------------------------------
lcanderson.com, LLC
Director
lyle@lcanderson.com
45 Hamilton Road
Chappaqua, New York 10514
tel: 914-238-2122
fax: 914-238-4833
mobile: 914-319-0539
pager: 173*151506*18
IM: lylelcanderson
www.lcanderson.com
------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: writelog-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:writelog-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve Gorecki
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:56 AM
To: WriteLog@contesting.com
Subject: [WriteLog] Open Letter to Wayne - Networking
With the power of Writelog and it's networking, I have a suggestion in
improving the networking flexability of WL.
We have all seen (and many have posted) issues around the networking of
WL,
and with various O/S, we keep hitting those NetDDE stumbling blocks
often
enough that something needs to be looked at. After a successful Field
Day
here (with some minor network/RF problems), I think now is a good time
to
make some suggestions. These may have been made before (maybe not
recently...), but I think it is worth another kick at the tires so to
speak.
Now I know Wayne is busy enough, with updates and various new contests,
but
the power of networking WL successfully is one of its strengths. Let's
fix
or get rid of the problems of passwords, NETDDE, etc. once and for all.
What I am suggesting is to go back to basics and set up WL to use TCP/IP
addressing and port numbers. I have seen many applications do this, and
NT
security is never an issue (because connection does not use MS
security). In
fact, following this suggestion may even enable the internet logging of
WL
without the need for a web server running custom Java.
Basically, I would suggest picking a free port number (high number such
as
in the 5000 range, 8000 range, whatever), and have WL connect by IP
address
only. To register to accept network connections, all WL does is open the
port and listen on it for incoming connections. The "Link to network"
menu
would require the destination IP address (and same fixed port number) to
connect. No user ID required, no domain or workgroup model to worry
about.
Now the drawback to this is that we may need to set up fixed IP
addresses
for our WL machines. To overcome this, the "Register to accept network
connections" menu could have a table of acceptable incoming IP addresses
or
a range of addresses to accept. For example, register for network,
accepting
incoming IP range of 192.168.1.100 to 192.168.1.150. By using the port
number, this ensures that it is another WL computer that we are looking
for.
Keep the same station ID setup (of course, for logging), but you could
now
drop the station names (no more Netbios). The WL station that is doing
the
"Link to Network" can specify an IP address, or a range of addresses to
scan
and connect to. Imagine that, connecting to more than one WL station
with
one command (ie: scan range of 192.168.1.100 to 150 as above) and
connect to
all if accepted.
The benefit of using IP addresses (and port#), is that now we would be
able
to network across the internet directly to other stations (club stations
take note...) With proper DSL or cable router configuration, I could
connect
my WL station to someone in another state (or province in my case). No
need
for the complicated Tomcat web server setup (and hardware). Most ISPs
will
pass incoming port numbers over 1024 (some allow all). So, if WL could
say
"open port #5xxx and listen for any incoming WL connect", anyone else
running WL could connect to my station. The WL "register to accept
network"
menu with a list of "acceptable" addresses would prevent unwanted
connections. (or use existing WL registration key to verify same
callsign
stations like those found in FD)
Well, that is about it. I hope Wayne will consider this option
carefully.
Why, it would even open the possibility of non-MS O/S participating in a
WL
network, if WL is ever ported to anything else (listening MAC and Linux
users?). The main idea here is to ensure that WL would become free of MS
security issues that will keep coming up, especially as new releases of
Windows come out with even more security.
Please send reply comments to this newsgroup. Thanks
73
Steve
VE3CWJ
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee(r) Security : 2
months
FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU
=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
|