> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 17:24 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> > I've been thinking about doing exactly this after I've been knee-deep >> > in the DNS code. >> > It may not be a bad idea to have generic udp/tcp incoming/outgoing >> > addresses which can then be over-ridden per-"protocol". >> > >> >> WTF? We discussed this months ago and came to the conclusion it would be >> good to have a two layered outgoing address/port assignment. >> >> a) base default of random system-assigned outbound address port. >> >> b) override per-component/protocol in/out bound address/port with >> individual config options. > > No need to panic! Looks like everybody is on the same page and it does > not really matter how many times that same page gets written :-). Start > a Feature page, perhaps?
Nah, no need I think. We are still waiting on an actual need for the (b) layer options. But if Adrian has found a need then its worth reminding about the behavior. Amos > > Cheers, > > Alex. > P.S. My fix is unrelated to all of that. It was just a typo bug. > > >> > 2008/9/9 Amos Jeffries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> revno: 9176 >> >>> committer: Alex Rousskov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> branch nick: trunk >> >>> timestamp: Mon 2008-09-08 17:52:06 -0600 >> >>> message: >> >>> Fixed typo: Config.Addrs.udp_outgoing was used for the HTCP >> incoming >> >>> address. >> >>> modified: >> >>> src/htcp.cc >> >>> >> >> >> >> I think this is one of those cleanup situations where we wanted to >> split >> >> the protocol away from generic udp_*_address and make it an >> >> htcp_outgoing_address. Yes? >> >> >> >> Amos >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >
