[WriteLog] Open Letter to Wayne - Networking

Tue Jul 6 13:07:49 EDT 2004

This has been an interesting thread and I think there are some
good points to be made. But it seems to me that the general
thinking has been so 1990's :-) Suppose we bring it up to the
early 2000's.
The requirements I've distilled are:
	1. easy networking
	2. secure
	3. automated discovery of peers
	4. automated synchronization
	5. coexistence with other network services
	6. off-the-shelf infrastructure when possible (don't reinvent plumbing)
	7. portable to old OSes
In the 1990's we would have built a client/server system where you would
need to know the address of the server and the port of the service. In 
the
new millennium we would use peer-to-peer networking. There are quite
a wide variety of these and they are most popular in the gaming and
file sharing community. But that is just a small part of the potential 
market.
I'd encourage Wayne to look at the more advanced peer-to-peer
infrastructures on the net. My personal bias is JXTA 
http://www.jxta.org
but there are others. O'Reilly has published a book on the topic which
seems to cover the topic from a high level quite well.
	http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/peertopeer/
You can read chapter one from the above URL for a decent overview.
 -- richard
On Jun 28, 2004, at 7:55 AM, Steve Gorecki wrote:
> With the power of Writelog and it's networking, I have a suggestion in 
> improving the networking flexability of WL.
>> We have all seen (and many have posted) issues around the networking 
> of WL, and with various O/S, we keep hitting those NetDDE stumbling 
> blocks often enough that something needs to be looked at. After a 
> successful Field Day here (with some minor network/RF problems), I 
> think now is a good time to make some suggestions. These may have been 
> made before (maybe not recently...), but I think it is worth another 
> kick at the tires so to speak.
>> Now I know Wayne is busy enough, with updates and various new 
> contests, but the power of networking WL successfully is one of its 
> strengths. Let's fix or get rid of the problems of passwords, NETDDE, 
> etc. once and for all.
>> What I am suggesting is to go back to basics and set up WL to use 
> TCP/IP addressing and port numbers. I have seen many applications do 
> this, and NT security is never an issue (because connection does not 
> use MS security). In fact, following this suggestion may even enable 
> the internet logging of WL without the need for a web server running 
> custom Java.
>> Basically, I would suggest picking a free port number (high number 
> such as in the 5000 range, 8000 range, whatever), and have WL connect 
> by IP address only. To register to accept network connections, all WL 
> does is open the port and listen on it for incoming connections. The 
> "Link to network" menu would require the destination IP address (and 
> same fixed port number) to connect. No user ID required, no domain or 
> workgroup model to worry about.
> Now the drawback to this is that we may need to set up fixed IP 
> addresses for our WL machines. To overcome this, the "Register to 
> accept network connections" menu could have a table of acceptable 
> incoming IP addresses or a range of addresses to accept. For example, 
> register for network, accepting incoming IP range of 192.168.1.100 to 
> 192.168.1.150. By using the port number, this ensures that it is 
> another WL computer that we are looking for. Keep the same station ID 
> setup (of course, for logging), but you could now drop the station 
> names (no more Netbios). The WL station that is doing the "Link to 
> Network" can specify an IP address, or a range of addresses to scan 
> and connect to. Imagine that, connecting to more than one WL station 
> with one command (ie: scan range of 192.168.1.100 to 150 as above) and 
> connect to all if accepted.
>> The benefit of using IP addresses (and port#), is that now we would be 
> able to network across the internet directly to other stations (club 
> stations take note...) With proper DSL or cable router configuration, 
> I could connect my WL station to someone in another state (or province 
> in my case). No need for the complicated Tomcat web server setup (and 
> hardware). Most ISPs will pass incoming port numbers over 1024 (some 
> allow all). So, if WL could say "open port #5xxx and listen for any 
> incoming WL connect", anyone else running WL could connect to my 
> station. The WL "register to accept network" menu with a list of 
> "acceptable" addresses would prevent unwanted connections. (or use 
> existing WL registration key to verify same callsign stations like 
> those found in FD)
>> Well, that is about it. I hope Wayne will consider this option 
> carefully. Why, it would even open the possibility of non-MS O/S 
> participating in a WL network, if WL is ever ported to anything else 
> (listening MAC and Linux users?). The main idea here is to ensure that 
> WL would become free of MS security issues that will keep coming up, 
> especially as new releases of Windows come out with even more 
> security.
>> Please send reply comments to this newsgroup. Thanks
>> 73
> Steve
> VE3CWJ
>> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 
> months FREE* 
> http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/ 
> prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/ 
> enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
>> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
>