[WriteLog] Open Letter to Wayne - Networking

[Richard Elling]

This has been an interesting thread and I think there are some
good points to be made.  But it seems to me that the general
thinking has been so 1990's :-)  Suppose we bring it up to the
early 2000's.

The requirements I've distilled are:

	1. easy networking
	2. secure
	3. automated discovery of peers
	4. automated synchronization
	5. coexistence with other network services
	6. off-the-shelf infrastructure when possible (don't reinvent plumbing)
	7. portable to old OSes

In the 1990's we would have built a client/server system where you would
need to know the address of the server and the port of the service.  In  
the
new millennium we would use peer-to-peer networking.  There are quite
a wide variety of these and they are most popular in the gaming and
file sharing community.  But that is just a small part of the potential  
market.
I'd encourage Wayne to look at the more advanced peer-to-peer
infrastructures on the net.  My personal bias is JXTA  
http://www.jxta.org
but there are others.  O'Reilly has published a book on the topic which
seems to cover the topic from a high level quite well.
	http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/peertopeer/
You can read chapter one from the above URL for a decent overview.
  -- richard

On Jun 28, 2004, at 7:55 AM, Steve Gorecki wrote:

> 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® 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 at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/
>