Hidden hubs/hidden servers/flat lists (was RE: Do we need mo

General talk about EFnet

Moderators: Website/Forum Admins, EFnet/General Moderators

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Postby Hardy » Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:02 am

seiki wrote:I'm strongly against flattened links, and hidden servernames. I think that's by far the lamest thing undernet has done in a long time.. (update, actually I think the nicklength change was even more lame, and recent).

on ircd.servercentral.net I don't allow servers to hide themselves or the routing hierarcy behind them. I host the map.efnet.info bot, and don't plan on changing my ways anytime soon. soo, plan on enjoying the pretty map for years to come.

-douglas
That might be so now, but if global voting voted in hidden links and remove all form of public information regarding how the network is routed you would have to :)

I dont fancy much removing this information from the users either. I like the fact that clued users of our network can see how servers are linked to get closest to eachother to reduce lag and chances of splits. But we have seen in the past that client server isp`s also hosting hubs gets attacked more then the ones that doesnt, so hiding hubs from links and have a flat structure of it can help those im all for it.

And when it comes to what UnderNet has done, i hate it to. Thats why i said in a previous post that we dont need to take it all the way like UnderNet has, but just remove this one option if we decide to do something.
-- Hardy
Administrator: irc.underworld.no
Services Administrator
http://www.efnet.org admin/staff
seiki

Postby seiki » Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:30 pm

I'd strongly opppose a global measure as pussyish as that one would be, and I'm pretty sure the majority of admins would agree.. If you're a pussy cake-boy admin whom is afraid of the routing map, you don't belong on efnet running a server in the first place. please move to undernet.

-douglas
Silence
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:37 am
Location: Sweden

Postby Silence » Thu Jun 17, 2004 5:03 am

Eventhough I'd put it in different words, I pretty much agree with what seiki just said. ;-)

Hiding servers in whois is just silly, and so is flattened links.
I remember that I used to enjoy checking the routing of the network back when I was a user. I also enjoyed checking stats and other network related stuff clearly not *needed* for a user. This is something a lot of people like doing, and I dont want to remove that from them just because a few imature brats cant behave...

/J
admin *.xs4all.nl
Silence
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:37 am
Location: Sweden

Postby Silence » Thu Jun 17, 2004 5:05 am

Also, as a sidenote, I pretty much despise any idea that will cause lengthy arguments on the adminlist. ;-)
admin *.xs4all.nl
wundr
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Japan

Postby wundr » Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:20 am

Silence wrote:I remember that I used to enjoy checking the routing of the network back when I was a user. I also enjoyed checking stats and other network related stuff clearly not *needed* for a user. This is something a lot of people like doing, and I dont want to remove that from them just because a few imature brats cant behave...

/J
speaking as a user on the network, i do really like checking the routing of the network, and i visit map.efnet.info (and wjr's network map before that) regularly. However, I don't think a network map, an interesting yet useless feature, is worth getting servers attacked. If it made the network more stable, I'd gladly lose that ability. Similarly, I really enjoyed reading the us-routing and admins mail list archives on the-project.org, including new server applications. We already lost that ability in the name of making the network more secure, and, in a way, i see this as being similar.
My personal opinion is that, though I like the network without it, flattened links could be OK, but whois server hiding is too much.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests