>We currently would like to work towards either having two domains
>which are only able to send to each other (basically for the use that
>if one is down, the other will work).
(Adding bennabiy to the access list for the room, for this discussion.)
This is an interesting approach. I've never seen anyone use two separate
domains for backup purposes.
One of the reasons I want to abandon the federated global address book is
because it's the source of the vast majority of addressability and reachability
problems. Here are a few of the problems I've seen it create, in no particular
order:
* Changing the node name makes the entire address book invalid
* People set up their local domains incorrectly
* Changing a user's display name invalidates their address book entry
If and when we abandon IGnet and the federated GAB, we can really really
simplify
the data model. Here's what I'm thinking:
* All networking of Citadel-to-Citadel gets done with SMTP (for mail), NNTP
(for rooms), and fully qualified domain names
* Abandon IGnet, and abandon the "short" node name entirely
* Now there's no need for any routing table; everything is done with DNS
and NNTP
* Global Address Book still exists, but the database built from it references
users by number, not name
Then -- we take everything still sitting in flat files, and move them into
the database:
* netconfigs (if we still need them at all)
* citadel.config and citadel.control
* room info files
* user profiles (both text and photos)
Once *everything* is in the database -- and unfortunately we may have to
flag-day our XML export format once we do that -- it becomes a simple matter
of database replication to run a pair of Citadel servers in active/standby
failover configuration. From what I've seen, it seems that this is what most
people *really* want.
