[WriteLog] Open Letter to Wayne - Networking

[Rob]

Incorporation of an IP Address/Port combination could be very good.  As far
as static addressing, the connectivity could be designed to allow for DHCP.
Basically, decide on an appropriate port number and when a system wants to
connect to the writelog "server", it broadcasts a small packed which the
"server" will be listening for.  To configure a client, just provide the
port number during configuration and a dhcp server is available.  This would
streamline the networking process.  I would allow configuration of the port
number with a default value.

Rob
AF2FA


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gorecki [mailto:ve3cwj at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:56 AM
To: WriteLog at 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 McAfeeR Security : 2 months 
FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt
p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines