11 Jun, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 22nd comment:
Out of curiosity Runter, why develop another centralized network infrastructure? I would think a peer-to-peer network would solve a good many of the issues that have been cropping up on IMC2. Namely, with no central "control" point, there isn't any point to arguing about what is acceptable on what channels. You want a godwin's law channel, create internet-nazis, and you have one. If anyone else wants to join it, they can. If you don't want it on YOUR mud, you can easily blacklist it on your server so nobody from your mud can join.
I was poking around Crat's mudlib, trying to get filtered channels working, and noticed that it has the code to be a full router in place. It's disabled by default, since configuring a router is a pain, and it'd probably be more traffic than most home connections want to deal with, but it made me think there's no reason every mud can't be its own router as well as connect to others.
Like bit torrent, you'd need an initial list of "stable" muds which can seed the addresses of other muds to you, but once you connect to that one for the population list, you could then switch to the lowest latency one at will. If one goes down, you just switch to any other node.
I was poking around Crat's mudlib, trying to get filtered channels working, and noticed that it has the code to be a full router in place. It's disabled by default, since configuring a router is a pain, and it'd probably be more traffic than most home connections want to deal with, but it made me think there's no reason every mud can't be its own router as well as connect to others.
Like bit torrent, you'd need an initial list of "stable" muds which can seed the addresses of other muds to you, but once you connect to that one for the population list, you could then switch to the lowest latency one at will. If one goes down, you just switch to any other node.
11 Jun, 2010, Runter wrote in the 23rd comment:
quixadhal said:
Out of curiosity Runter, why develop another centralized network infrastructure?
Cause that's what I'm working on. It meets my needs for connecting multiple ports together. It may meet others needs, too. It's polymorphic and has composition under closure. Besides, if you had read what I said instead of just the headline you'd know that the central control point in my system is completely unmoderated and individual nodes/routers will have the power to decide what comes into their network/mud/whatever just the same. The big difference is gaining the moderation of anything you umbrella in addition to your own policy. If I have a router for my different game ports set up + the router subscribes to the mudbytes router, which subscribes to the unmoderated router, then I'll receive the (perhaps) benefit of whatever moderation mudbytes provides and their channels + my own local, private moderation and channels. If I truly want unmoderated content I can connect directly to the unmoderated router.
12 Jun, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 24th comment:
Nicely defensive! You can Scandum really must do lunch….
All I was saying is that your network sounds like it relies on a "core" cluster of servers that ultimately keep everything connected. Hence, if those "core" systems go away (for whatever reason), the network dissolves into a set of unconnected smaller networks. In that respect, I think peer-to-peer would have been a better choice. You obviously disagree or don't care, that's fine.
Nice to see the atmosphere around here remains refreshingly hostile. :)
All I was saying is that your network sounds like it relies on a "core" cluster of servers that ultimately keep everything connected. Hence, if those "core" systems go away (for whatever reason), the network dissolves into a set of unconnected smaller networks. In that respect, I think peer-to-peer would have been a better choice. You obviously disagree or don't care, that's fine.
Nice to see the atmosphere around here remains refreshingly hostile. :)
12 Jun, 2010, Runter wrote in the 25th comment:
quixadhal said:
Nicely defensive! You can Scandum really must do lunch….
All I was saying is that your network sounds like it relies on a "core" cluster of servers that ultimately keep everything connected. Hence, if those "core" systems go away (for whatever reason), the network dissolves into a set of unconnected smaller networks. In that respect, I think peer-to-peer would have been a better choice. You obviously disagree or don't care, that's fine.
Nice to see the atmosphere around here remains refreshingly hostile. :)
All I was saying is that your network sounds like it relies on a "core" cluster of servers that ultimately keep everything connected. Hence, if those "core" systems go away (for whatever reason), the network dissolves into a set of unconnected smaller networks. In that respect, I think peer-to-peer would have been a better choice. You obviously disagree or don't care, that's fine.
Nice to see the atmosphere around here remains refreshingly hostile. :)
Eh, not trying to be defensive or hostile. I agree that the core server redundancy is a potential problem.
Random Picks
muhaha.