I have seen questions and differing thoughts on the use of certain nodelist flags and their preferred or correct usage. A couple such
flags are INA and IBN and how each should be used to specify nodelist connectivity data. In looking through the current nodelist I see those
two flags used in a couple different ways.
Thoughts on which and why?
It is that the IBN flag cannot include the host address itself, that
is why we usually have a combination of INA+IBN in the nodelist.
Thoughts on which and why?
It is that the IBN flag cannot include the host address itself,
that is why we usually have a combination of INA+IBN in the
nodelist.
Wrong.
IBN:fido.vlist.eu or IBN:f5556.vlist.eu:24555 is perfectly valid.
This is shorter than using the INA,IBN combination.
Using the INA flag for the host addess is shorter when there are
multiple protocol flags.
INA:fido.vlist.eu,IBN,ITN is fine as well.
It is all documented in FTS-5001.
Hello everybody!
I have seen questions and differing thoughts on the use of certain nodelist flags and their preferred or correct usage. A couple such
flags are INA and IBN and how each should be used to specify nodelist connectivity data. In looking through the current nodelist I see those
two flags used in a couple different ways.
Thoughts on which and why?
What if a node only supports BinkP protocol? Probably, a single IBN
record can hold the hostname itself without additional INA flag, but it would be easier to add a new protocol flag in future.
TLS is artificially weakened by implanted security holes and barriers against making it a bit more secure.
However, SBN flag would once be announced... and there would be binkp,
but no TLS or other insecure shit.
Hello everybody!
I have seen questions and differing thoughts on the use of certain
nodelist flags and their preferred or correct usage. A couple such
flags are INA and IBN and how each should be used to specify nodelist connectivity data. In looking through the current nodelist I see those
two flags used in a couple different ways.
Thoughts on which and why?
Jeff
Hello, Jeff!
Thursday October 22 2020 01:01, from Jeff Smith -> All:
I have seen questions and differing thoughts on the use of certain nodelist flags and their preferred or correct usage. A couple such flags are INA and IBN and how each should be used to specify nodelist connectivity data. In looking through the current nodelist I see those two flags used in a couple different ways.
Thoughts on which and why?
INA flag tells you that the node supports IP connection and the address is provided. There used to be IP flag for the same reason but because the addre itself was optional it is deprecated in favor of INA.
Here, the IBN flag specifies that the Binkp protocol is supported and optionally a non-standard port can be specified. Other supported protocol c be IFC (RAW ifcico), IFT, ITN, or IVM protocol.
It is that the IBN flag cannot include the host address itself, that is why usually have a combination of INA+IBN in the nodelist.
Best Regards, Nil
The specs grew over time without a great deal of direction.
There was an old
FAQ back when such was new (no longer on the FTSC site, all
the FAQs were
removed).
In general there is a proper usage, but older patterns are
still there.
The specs grew over time without a great deal of direction.
There was an old
FAQ back when such was new (no longer on the FTSC site, all
the FAQs were
removed).
In general there is a proper usage, but older patterns are
still there.
Thank you for the info Carol.
Does anyone happen to have a copy of the old FAQ's out there?
This is what's in the nodelist now...
.... and it is misleading. This is what FTS-5001 defines:
If a non-standard port is in use I use the syntax INA:FQDN/IP:<port>
Sysop: | Coz |
---|---|
Location: | Anoka, MN |
Users: | 2 |
Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
Uptime: | 00:50:25 |
Calls: | 97 |
Files: | 4,636 |
Messages: | 216,334 |