> It seems that the UDP binding that's on by default is causing more > confusing than it's worth (difficulty to bring up a second instance on > a different port, for example). > > I propose we do one of two things: > > 1) Assume almost nobody uses it just disable it by default, allowing > people who actually use it to burn the resources and do the extra > work. > > 2) Create some kind of complicated, but intuitive port-follow rules > so that when someone specifies a TCP binding port parameter, but not a > UDP port binding parameter, that the UDP port binding is on the same > number (and vice versa). >
#2. We keep disabling/re-enabling the UDP stuff since folks want to write clients that assume it's there sometimes. Think the follow rules just need to be: if only one setting has been overridden, the other one follows? Or is there need for something weirder? -Dormando
