Fredrik Tolf wrote:
That was what I was referring to. And I don't think anyone said that
the current protocol was perfect.
Oh, certainly not. But hubs can protect against *some of it*
the hubs that need the NatUsers script (or other exemptions for people
with legitimate wrong-ips in various protocol commands).
In any case, I don't really know why I even followed up on the DoS
matter. The thing that I really don't agree with about ADC is the fact
that such a command division isn't actually necessary. I believe that
all commands should be clearly defined, and those that are broadcasted
should be specified in such a way that allows for easy future
extension of those commands.
True, this is a better argument than a half-hearted
DC-client-as-ddos-tool argument (but that should be a topic of
discussion at some point - how to handle "evilness" in the network).
For me, ADC makes sense: The simplicity of, more or less, being able
to write a hub that consists of a switch statement is appealing. So is
the ability add arbitrary broadcast and directed commands. Users want a
lot of things, and all of them won't be covered by any single protocol
we accept. If a new directed command is needed (say, for client to
client cctp), making its function dependent upon what (adc or
dolda-connect compliant) hubsoft the clients are attached to is just
plain unacceptable - it's the same situation we have now.