|
|
| Author |
Message |
pawlicki none

Joined: 15 Oct 2007 Posts: 27
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2007 7:44pm Post subject: new network? |
|
|
i'm just tossing out an idea here...
i noticed many people have their boxes which host for some irc networks using ports approx. 6600-7000.
Would anybody be interested in linking a few boxes on non-standard ports, such as 9990-9999, and making a new irc network?
I have a machine that could do it, and would be happy to start if people wanted to join.
Maybe even allow wildcard server linking? (like eris used to  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ircmojo Lurker

Joined: 02 Mar 2007 Posts: 215 Location: $HOME sweet $HOME
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2007 9:30pm Post subject: |
|
|
why? Don't you think there is already enough "hey lets just throw together a few ircds because we can" type networks out there?
No offense, but there is already far too many pointless networks already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pawlicki none

Joined: 15 Oct 2007 Posts: 27
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2007 12:04am Post subject: ... |
|
|
but still... why not?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Invisible Lurker

Joined: 26 Jul 2005 Posts: 191
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2007 12:31am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why should anyone? What premise does having non standard ports have besides that people won't connect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ircmojo Lurker

Joined: 02 Mar 2007 Posts: 215 Location: $HOME sweet $HOME
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2007 5:55am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| pawlicki wrote: | but still... why not?  |
Frankly, it's a stupid idea. There are already countless other networks out there that started the same way .. without a real purpose. It's a total waste of time and resources .. that's why not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jobe Idler

Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 374 Location: Lurking in the shadows of some random channel!
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2007 8:01am Post subject: |
|
|
Not to mention the confusion non-standard ports cause.
"I cant connect to your network! Why?" <- will be a frequently asked question, because nearly all users try 6667 or 6697 for SSL |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pawlicki none

Joined: 15 Oct 2007 Posts: 27
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2007 7:25pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Actually you're misguided.
Most IRC boxes have these ports unused, so in fact they're wasting the resources by having 1 ircd running and all the unused ports.
IRCd does not take much bandwidth, nor does it take alot of memory.
Running 1 service on a modern server (unless it's a huge network like dalnet), is like having a 18-wheeler to haul 5 lbs of groceries.
Think before you criticize. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Invisible Lurker

Joined: 26 Jul 2005 Posts: 191
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2007 8:01pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We understand this, but the fact is that most users don't have these ports selected to connect on since most users go to what most ircd boxes use which is the standard ports. What you need if you have a large box and no standard ports but want to run more is to buy extra ips to be assigned to the box and then you can use the standard ports. Otherwise you need to think of a use for non standard port using besides just for the hell of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jobe Idler

Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 374 Location: Lurking in the shadows of some random channel!
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2007 8:10pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| pawlicki wrote: | Actually you're misguided.
Most IRC boxes have these ports unused, so in fact they're wasting the resources by having 1 ircd running and all the unused ports. |
If that was at me, you missed my point, users try 6667 because they assume it to be the default port. So if you host and IRCd on the same IP as another networls, them on 6667 and yours on 9997, would you want users connecting to the other network and not yours? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ircmojo Lurker

Joined: 02 Mar 2007 Posts: 215 Location: $HOME sweet $HOME
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2007 8:16pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| pawlicki wrote: | Actually you're misguided.
Most IRC boxes have these ports unused, so in fact they're wasting the resources by having 1 ircd running and all the unused ports.
IRCd does not take much bandwidth, nor does it take alot of memory.
Running 1 service on a modern server (unless it's a huge network like dalnet), is like having a 18-wheeler to haul 5 lbs of groceries.
Think before you criticize. |
SearchIRC indexes 4400+ networks, it only takes 20 users to be larger than 90% of them. That's how many empty networks there are. Yet you want to toss out " people are wasting resources" speach. The fact of setting up yet another pointless network is a MUCH larger waste than having un-used ports on your box.
Unused ports aren't wasting anything .. they are just that .. unused. 0 resources are used on those ports.
Setting a network wastes, memory, cpu cycles, time, webspace, IP's, ports hard drive space just to name a few.
So it is you that needs to think before hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
greg27 Lurker

Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 159 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2007 10:55pm Post subject: |
|
|
most providers offer additional ip addresses for around $1 a month - why not just pay for another ip address and set up your 'new network' on the standard 6667 port? this will still aid in solving the alleged 'wasted box' issue.
but anyway - why create a network for the hell of it? as ircmojo said, an unused network is a waste of resources. the aim is to minimise server memory use, not run additional services for the sole reason that there is some unused memory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jobe Idler

Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 374 Location: Lurking in the shadows of some random channel!
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2007 4:02am Post subject: |
|
|
What about the fact we're rapidly running out of IP addresses? Is wasting another one on an IRC network that will 9 times out fo 10 fail not a waste?
It's bad enough you can find organisations like for example US uni's with large blocks of IP addresses just so each computer can have it's own IP address when barely any of them need to be accessed directly from the internet.
Another thing that doesnt help is networks who demand the ONLY services on your box (and consequently your IP address) is the IRCd and SSHd. Where the IP address could easily also be used to host a small website, DNS or other more useful services. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PingBad Guru

Joined: 05 Feb 2005 Posts: 2064 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2007 3:36pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jobe wrote: | | Another thing that doesnt help is networks who demand the ONLY services on your box (and consequently your IP address) is the IRCd and SSHd. Where the IP address could easily also be used to host a small website, DNS or other more useful services. | True, but look at the other side of the coin - more services on the box means more apps to patch/update. It's all about attack surface |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lord_Diablo Newbie

Joined: 10 Sep 2007 Posts: 80 Location: Fairfield,CA
|
Posted: Nov 27, 2007 1:35am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yea... not a great idea. Alot of us have done this already as a fun throw it together thing, and it really only ended up being a flame war, ddos park, and gzline heaven.... Not worth even attempting =) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|