LAN zone

Use this forum to flesh out your feature request before you enter it in <a href="http://dcpp.net/bugzilla/">Bugzilla</a>.

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
kulmegil_

LAN zone

Post by kulmegil_ » 2006-03-20 06:39

Let's make a really simple tweak for users who use single DC++ connecting both to their LAN Hub(s), and goes for outside world mostly.

* LAN Zone
LAN zone usually can be auto. determinated by user's Subnet Mask. But sometimes there are fast WANs (LANs routed with fast links betwen them) that will require manual settings.
Limitations: limited to 1 class B Net (?)

* Enable safe and compressed transfersr for LAN zone
Usually leaving "Enable safe and compressed transfers" enabled is a good thing, but compresing fast 100/1000Mbps transfers can kill almost any CPU.

* Additional slots for LAN zone
Like Minislots, but they are reserved for files for users connecting from IPs from LAN zone.


That's all... maksimum of 3 new GUI controls, some of them are optional (additional slots can be preset, but...), and i don't think it will really be that hard to implement?
:)

Todi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 699
Joined: 2003-03-04 12:16
Contact:

Post by Todi » 2006-03-21 06:35

If it's not so hard, you should do it yourself.

The only potential feature i see here is number 2, but since it's easily done manually, it's not likely to be done.

kulmegil_

Post by kulmegil_ » 2006-03-25 03:54

I'm a pretty lame when it comes to programming in C++ now. Probably I could do it if I spent some time on it. But it's not the point to create another DC++ mod for 1 new feature, but to put it in existing mod, or (if it's really a must) to put in DC++ itself.
I simply think (imho) there are lot's of people who would appreciate this, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement it in DC++.

Todi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 699
Joined: 2003-03-04 12:16
Contact:

Post by Todi » 2006-03-25 06:43

Anyone can contribute patches for DC++, perhaps someone else than you will.

Pothead
Posts: 223
Joined: 2005-01-15 06:55

Post by Pothead » 2006-03-25 06:50

Would classing 10.xxx.xxx.xxx and 192.168.xxx.xxx as LAN zones, and just handeling them differently work ? Also am i missing any lan ip ranges ?

[NL]Pur
Programmer
Posts: 66
Joined: 2004-07-21 14:32

Post by [NL]Pur » 2006-03-25 06:53

Why not instead make a feature to load different config files and name them. That way you can load and tweak any setting you want for a certain network.

joakim_tosteberg
Forum Moderator
Posts: 587
Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
Location: Sweden, Linkoping

Post by joakim_tosteberg » 2006-03-25 06:56

Pothead wrote:Would classing 10.xxx.xxx.xxx and 192.168.xxx.xxx as LAN zones, and just handeling them differently work ? Also am i missing any lan ip ranges ?
You are missing 172.16.0.0-172.31.255.255

Carraya
Posts: 112
Joined: 2004-09-21 11:43

Post by Carraya » 2006-03-25 08:17

Pothead wrote:Would classing 10.xxx.xxx.xxx and 192.168.xxx.xxx as LAN zones, and just handeling them differently work ? Also am i missing any lan ip ranges ?


Basicly yes you are... You can configure anything you want as a Lan IP range... 192.169.*.* is a default range as well :)
<random funny comment>

joakim_tosteberg
Forum Moderator
Posts: 587
Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
Location: Sweden, Linkoping

Post by joakim_tosteberg » 2006-03-25 08:43

Carraya wrote:
Pothead wrote:Would classing 10.xxx.xxx.xxx and 192.168.xxx.xxx as LAN zones, and just handeling them differently work ? Also am i missing any lan ip ranges ?


Basicly yes you are... You can configure anything you want as a Lan IP range... 192.169.*.* is a default range as well :)
Nope it isn't. According to RFC 1918 it is the following ranges that are reserved for private ip's:

10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)

Carraya
Posts: 112
Joined: 2004-09-21 11:43

Post by Carraya » 2006-03-25 09:59

Well then they should update it, because 127.* is as well, with 127.0.0.1 reserved for loopback...
<random funny comment>

joakim_tosteberg
Forum Moderator
Posts: 587
Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
Location: Sweden, Linkoping

Post by joakim_tosteberg » 2006-03-25 10:18

127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host
loopback address. A datagram sent by a higher level protocol to an
address anywhere within this block should loop back inside the host.
This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback,
but no addresses within this block should ever appear on any network
anywhere [RFC1700, page 5].

Carraya
Posts: 112
Joined: 2004-09-21 11:43

Post by Carraya » 2006-03-25 11:00

joakim_tosteberg wrote:
127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host
loopback address. A datagram sent by a higher level protocol to an
address anywhere within this block should loop back inside the host.
This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback,
but no addresses within this block should ever appear on any network
anywhere [RFC1700, page 5].


Arh my bad, but still 192.169 addys should be LAN addys...
<random funny comment>

joakim_tosteberg
Forum Moderator
Posts: 587
Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
Location: Sweden, Linkoping

Post by joakim_tosteberg » 2006-03-25 11:04

Carraya wrote:
joakim_tosteberg wrote:
127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host
loopback address. A datagram sent by a higher level protocol to an
address anywhere within this block should loop back inside the host.
This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback,
but no addresses within this block should ever appear on any network
anywhere [RFC1700, page 5].


Arh my bad, but still 192.169 addys should be LAN addys...
Never heard of that before, but I might be wrong.

kulmegil_

Post by kulmegil_ » 2006-03-25 12:01

Hmmm I think most common are:
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255

But, for example my LAN (10.104.32.0/20) is a part of bigger network (10.*.*.*) that contains few thousand users probably, and more then 1k are using our DC hub. If this would work on all it would be quite inefficient.
Although most users with small home/office LAN won't care.

IMHO - Detecting by subnet mask usually gives best results. And as a second - option to determine range by hand (hide it somewhere on advanced tab) :)

TheParanoidOne
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1420
Joined: 2003-04-22 14:37

Post by TheParanoidOne » 2006-03-25 13:06

Carraya wrote:
joakim_tosteberg wrote:
127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host
loopback address. A datagram sent by a higher level protocol to an
address anywhere within this block should loop back inside the host.
This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback,
but no addresses within this block should ever appear on any network
anywhere [RFC1700, page 5].


Arh my bad, but still 192.169 addys should be LAN addys...


Why?
The world is coming to an end. Please log off.

DC++ Guide | Words

Xan1977
Forum Moderator
Posts: 627
Joined: 2003-06-05 20:15

Post by Xan1977 » 2006-03-25 14:25

You can use any IP range you want inside a LAN, 192.169 or any other ones. It's not the best idea, but it will work. I have several offices (that weren't installed by me) all running 200.200.x addresses locally.

TheParanoidOne
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1420
Joined: 2003-04-22 14:37

Post by TheParanoidOne » 2006-03-25 15:30

Indeed. As long as you have no routing that will leak the addresses to the outside world, you can use whatever you like. Seems more hassle than it's worth, to me though.
The world is coming to an end. Please log off.

DC++ Guide | Words

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2006-03-26 17:16

joakim_tosteberg wrote:Never heard of that before, but I might be wrong.

That is, (or is rather close to) the Zeroconf IP range.

Locked