A question (and a test to see if I'm still subscribed) The various instant messenging services, such as AIM, ICQ, Microsoft, Yahoo, other Messenger uses a central server to manage "presence". No central server appears to mean no instant messages, am I correct? What does this have to do with NANOG, apparently it is becoming more common for backbone NOC folks to communicate with their friends in other NOCs via one of these instant chat programs. I didn't realize how common it was until I was informed about it last month when AOL/AIM had difficulties. This month Yahoo Messenger had power difficulties, which disrupted their central servers. If folks are using this these services for real-time communications, should we be trying to improve their reliability? Or is this just a "feature" of how presence services work.
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 11:35:27AM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote: [snip]
If folks are using this these services for real-time communications, should we be trying to improve their reliability? Or is this just a "feature" of how presence services work.
We use IRC for internal communication, and for communication with techies of several other Dutch ISPs. Works like a charm, and the irc server is local to us. If it's down, you pick another irc-server on the same network. Works for us, works for lot of people. Greetz, Peter.
This begs a question - does anyone have good experience with SSL-enabled IRC servers? I'm testing UnrealIRCd right now, but I've run into some showstopper bugs when trying to link servers over SSL. Any other suggestions? -Chris On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 08:50:29PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 11:35:27AM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote: [snip]
If folks are using this these services for real-time communications, should we be trying to improve their reliability? Or is this just a "feature" of how presence services work.
We use IRC for internal communication, and for communication with techies of several other Dutch ISPs. Works like a charm, and the irc server is local to us. If it's down, you pick another irc-server on the same network.
Works for us, works for lot of people.
Greetz, Peter.
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
This begs a question - does anyone have good experience with SSL-enabled IRC servers? I'm testing UnrealIRCd right now, but I've run into some showstopper bugs when trying to link servers over SSL. Any other suggestions?
-Chris
ConferenceRoom (www.webmaster.com). The SSL implementation was good enough for some folks in Maryland. DS
ConferenceRoom (www.webmaster.com). The SSL implementation was good enough for some folks in Maryland.
it's good enough if you feel like dropping minimum half a grand for the windows version, or eight hundred for the unix flavor. oh and if you want the encryption module thats an extra thousand. but that can only be applied to the version that will run you five thousand dollars in the first place. for chat david? c'mon. not everyone is ted turner. especially when (last time i checked) most of the code was just the dalnet ircd (the old one mind you, not the one [bahamut] that jason referred to). stick to the free versions guys. chat shouldn't be that expensive.
DS
-ken harris.
for chat david? c'mon. not everyone is ted turner. especially when (last time i checked) most of the code was just the dalnet ircd (the old one mind you, not the one [bahamut] that jason referred to). stick to the free versions guys.
-ken harris.
Last time you checked? How could you have possibly checked ConferenceRoom's code? ConferenceRoom used to have a DreamForge protocol compatability mode. This was useful a long time ago before there were any ConferenceRoom networks large enough to allow load testing. As soon as WebChat/WebNet exceeded 10,000 users, the compatability mode was dumped in favor of extra features that the old RFC1459-based server-server protocols couldn't possibly support. Since that time, ConferenceRoom's chat layer was reimplemented anyway, so there aren't even any remnants of that compatability. There are no implementation similarities between Ircd and ConferenceRoom. Ircd is written in C, ConferenceRoom is C++ and OOP from the ground up. Ircd was written for UNIX with some patches to make it sort of work on Windows. ConferenceRoom is written in platform-independent code that sits on an operating system adaptation layer (including, for example, completion ports for Windows and /dev/poll support for Solaris). Ircd is fundamentally single-threaded with a select or poll loop, ConferenceRoom is multithreaded with a thread pool architecture. A lot of ConferenceRoom customers started out with Ircd as a proof of concept implementation. At some point they needed features and support that it's just not really possible to get with Ircd. The list of ConferenceRoom features that are nearly impossible to get with Ircd and Apache would run for several pages. Ircd has openness built in from the ground up. For a public chat network, that's really great. However, for an application where you need more control and integration, Ircd becomes really unworkable. (For example, how easy is it to integrate Ircd with a web site? Or with customized security rules?) Services is a partial kludge to get some fraction of that capability, but it's not something I'd want to rely on. You can fake a lot of things with an assortment of special-purpose bots as well. But you wind up with a hodge-podge of CGIs, bots, and other assorted bits and pieces that you can only support yourself. Just try to get Ircd to perform reasonably on an NT4.0 or Win2K server. Try to get it to take advantage of a multiprocessor Solaris box. Ted Turner wants a better solution than that. ;) David Schwartz PS: If you want to continue this off-list, I'd be happy to correct any further misconceptions you might have. But this has almost no relationship to network operations.
Just try to get Ircd to perform reasonably on an NT4.0 or Win2K server. Try to get it to take advantage of a multiprocessor Solaris box. Ted Turner wants a better solution than that. ;)
< http://www.boredom.org/cnn/statement.html > i'm sure ted loved the day that conference room crashed during a president clinton and wolf blitzer interview. or how someone was able to pretend they were the president during the interview as well.
David Schwartz
-ken harris.
Just try to get Ircd to perform reasonably on an NT4.0 or Win2K server. Try to get it to take advantage of a multiprocessor Solaris box. Ted Turner wants a better solution than that. ;)
i'm sure ted loved the day that conference room crashed during a president clinton and wolf blitzer interview. or how someone was able to pretend they were the president during the interview as well.
A P2-266 with 64Mb of RAM, running NT4.0, a web server, and a chat server, held 2,800 chat users and about 800 web connections at the same time. The operators at CNN had never run a chat that large before and didn't quite understand how to use all of the tools and features. Since then, they've received additional training and have upgraded their hardware. One unfortunate thing about Windows NT 4.0 is that unless you tune it, it sets a very low limit on the amount of memory that can be locked for I/O. With only 64Mb, the amount of memory it allowed to be locked was way too low for the number of concurrent TCP connections they were handling. Sadly, a few NT4.0 drivers blue screen when they can't lock memory for I/O. FreeBSD blows up almost as badly when it runs out of mbufs. We have never seen this problem on Windows 2000. However, overall, I recommend using Linux or Solaris, at least until FreeBSD's threading problems are resolved. DS
A P2-266 with 64Mb of RAM, running NT4.0, a web server, and a chat server, held 2,800 chat users and about 800 web connections at the same time. The
< http://www.boredom.org/cnn/webmaster.response.html > in that statement you made you said the box had 128MB of RAM.
DS
-ken harris. ps: ya i know. way off topic. im done. apologies.
A P2-266 with 64Mb of RAM, running NT4.0, a web server, and a chat server, held 2,800 chat users and about 800 web connections at the same time. The
< http://www.boredom.org/cnn/webmaster.response.html >
in that statement you made you said the box had 128MB of RAM.
I'm almost certain that the correct machine specs were as I said in that last email, P2-266 with 64Mb. I believe NT4.0 locks a minimum of 8Kb per TCP connection (for the first chunk it might receive), and 2,800 chat connections plus 800 web connections would be about 30Mb. Since NT 4.0 won't let you lock more than half the memory for I/O by default, 64Mb makes the math work out. If anybody really cares, I can contact the people involved and confirm the machine specifications. Lest you think I'm picking on NT, FreeBSD will do similar things if you run it out of mbufs. And Windows 2000 doesn't seem to have this particular problem any more (it has other more minor problems, but that's another story). DS
This begs a question - does anyone have good experience with SSL-enabled IRC servers? I'm testing UnrealIRCd right now, but I've run into some showstopper bugs when trying to link servers over SSL. Any other suggestions?
i've toyed around with nakenchat: < http://nakenchat.naken.cc > it's web based primarily, that way you don't need to explain to some people how to use any irc client, and i toyed around with some homemade hacks within it adding xor filters and the like. i had to setup a chat arena where psychiatrists could communicate with their patients, so you can imagine the security features that i evovled into it and how locked down you can make it. it serves it purpose properly, and has pretty much all the features you'll find in an irc server. when i found a couple problems (buffer overflows etc), the maintainer was quick to implement fixes and help out wherever needed. enjoy.
-Chris
cheers. -ken harris.
Newer versions of bahamut will do encrypted links. Just rc4. http://bahamut.dal.net Scalability while compressing to clients is a severly limiting factor unless you only plan on using it locally. Jason -- Jason Slagle - CCNP - CCDP Network Administrator - Toledo Internet Access - Toledo Ohio - raistlin@tacorp.net - jslagle@toledolink.com - WHOIS JS10172 /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign . If dreams are like movies then memories X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail . are films about ghosts.. / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail . - Adam Duritz - Counting Crows On Tue, 8 May 2001, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
This begs a question - does anyone have good experience with SSL-enabled IRC servers? I'm testing UnrealIRCd right now, but I've run into some showstopper bugs when trying to link servers over SSL. Any other suggestions?
-Chris
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 08:50:29PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 11:35:27AM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote: [snip]
If folks are using this these services for real-time communications, should we be trying to improve their reliability? Or is this just a "feature" of how presence services work.
We use IRC for internal communication, and for communication with techies of several other Dutch ISPs. Works like a charm, and the irc server is local to us. If it's down, you pick another irc-server on the same network.
Works for us, works for lot of people.
Greetz, Peter.
I've had rather good luck with various servers (IRC, smtp, pop) and stunnel (www.stunnel.org). It's all transparent to the server/client, and works quite nicely. I think I once hooked up to the SSL-only IRC network with mIRC via stunnel, worked quite nice. *nix/win32, GPL. This being said, I currently run a IRC server (cyclone) for the company to use for various things, and once you show someone how to use it, they're quite happy. You can even set mIRC to be as annoying as a IM when a new line shows up. ie, blinking, sounds, etc. In fact, I'm looking around for a web-->IRC gateway so that we can use it for support via the website. Each session gets their own channel that a tech is added to. Should work good. --Eric -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Christopher A. Woodfield Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 3:46 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Instant chats and central servers This begs a question - does anyone have good experience with SSL-enabled IRC servers? I'm testing UnrealIRCd right now, but I've run into some showstopper bugs when trying to link servers over SSL. Any other suggestions? -Chris On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 08:50:29PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 11:35:27AM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote: [snip]
If folks are using this these services for real-time communications, should we be trying to improve their reliability? Or is this just a "feature" of how presence services work.
We use IRC for internal communication, and for communication with techies of several other Dutch ISPs. Works like a charm, and the irc server is local to us. If it's down, you pick another irc-server on the same network.
Works for us, works for lot of people.
Greetz, Peter.
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:45:55PM -0400, Christopher A. Woodfield exclaimed:
This begs a question - does anyone have good experience with SSL-enabled IRC servers? I'm testing UnrealIRCd right now, but I've run into some showstopper bugs when trying to link servers over SSL. Any other suggestions?
http://www.suidnet.org the original ircd-over-encrypted-channel ... but as others have noted, IRC is not the best solution for IM needs (although it's certainly not a problem to make a /msg via IRC behave identically to a message through your IM client ... my sirc already does this for me (both audio and visual bell) ...)
-Chris
-- Scott Francis scott@ [work:] v i r t u a l i s . c o m Systems Analyst darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t West Coast Network Ops GPG keyid 0xCB33CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui
It's a feature of how free services work.
I know that one household name in IT uses an internal chat server to allow there 2nd line support get access to there 3rd line people. Basically it means they have instant access to all the heavy hitters in a non-intrusive way. It works a dream as a customer I can get access via the 2nd line to 3rd line folk that want to answer questions. Rather than the usual model of some harassed 3rd line guru having to answer a question. Regards, Kevin
At 11:35 AM 5/8/01 -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
If folks are using this these services for real-time communications, should we be trying to improve their reliability? Or is this just a "feature" of how presence services work.
*********************************IMPORTANT NOTICE****************************** All e-mails for technical support must be cc'd to support@lancomms.ie. This ensures that the call is logged with the support desk and the case is actively tracked which speeds up the response you will receive. If you have an urgent problem you _must_ contact the support desk directly on 01-4093030. *****************************************************************************************
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Kevin Gannon wrote:
It's a feature of how free services work.
i think sean was really interested in if/how people are using those AIM/YM things. we are pretty heavily dependent upon realtime chat (for the reasons kevin outlines below) but would never even joke about using AIM/YM for senstive information w/i our organization. well, ok, we do *joke* about it. ;)
I know that one household name in IT uses an internal chat server to allow there 2nd line support get access to there 3rd line people. Basically it means they have instant access to all the heavy hitters in a non-intrusive way.
this is what we do, except that we have our entire staff, from our office assistant to the owner of the company on one irc channel on a private server. it's indespensible! as a matter of fact, people are chastized for not paying attention to it, because it is the PRIMARY means of communication w/i the company. of course, we have less than 10 people active at any given time, so it's not too unruley.
It works a dream as a customer I can get access via the 2nd line to 3rd line folk that want to answer questions. Rather than the
we have been running a beta of a java-type thing to irc (i don't know the details) for customers to talk directly with support staff. it IS a dream, they love it. i rejected using AIM/YM for customer relations, too. we don't let them send passwords via email, and certainly wouldn't let them send them across aol's and yahoo's networks. so for us, it's a matter of not allowing proprietary information off of our own servers that makes us reject those programs. deeann m.m. mikula network administrator telerama internet -- http://www.telerama.com abuse@telerama.com/spam@telerama.com 1.877.688.3200x501
Honestly if your company/NOC/whatever is going to use something like this to communicate, I would recommend running your own server, I've worked on financial institutions networks that actually used AIM for communications (ie, JoeBob: Can you change the PIN # on account XYZ to 1234 MarySue: Sure), and used a hotmail address for their ACH! (Automatic Checking withdrawl/deposit) it's insanely irresponsible to use a third party messaging service for anything that your customers information could pass through. FYI, there are ICQ servers you can run locally, but not for AIM or MSN, I would suggest an IRC server. Matthew S. Hallacy (if you're still in doubt, feel free to go read AOL and MSN's ToS for their messaging services) On 8 May 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
A question (and a test to see if I'm still subscribed)
The various instant messenging services, such as AIM, ICQ, Microsoft, Yahoo, other Messenger uses a central server to manage "presence".
No central server appears to mean no instant messages, am I correct?
What does this have to do with NANOG, apparently it is becoming more common for backbone NOC folks to communicate with their friends in other NOCs via one of these instant chat programs. I didn't realize how common it was until I was informed about it last month when AOL/AIM had difficulties. This month Yahoo Messenger had power difficulties, which disrupted their central servers.
If folks are using this these services for real-time communications, should we be trying to improve their reliability? Or is this just a "feature" of how presence services work.
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:11:07PM +0200, poptix wrote:
FYI, there are ICQ servers you can run locally, but not for AIM or MSN, I would suggest an IRC server.
IRC pretty much requires you to sit there watching it, and has lots of other limitations that make it less useful for this purpose than instant messenging. Try Jabber; they have servers. And, it can also talk to AIM, MSN, etc, although AOL is currently trying to make that stop working.
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 07:53:38PM -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:11:07PM +0200, poptix wrote:
FYI, there are ICQ servers you can run locally, but not for AIM or MSN, I would suggest an IRC server.
IRC pretty much requires you to sit there watching it, and has lots of other limitations that make it less useful for this purpose than instant messenging.
Try Jabber; they have servers.
And, it can also talk to AIM, MSN, etc, although AOL is currently trying to make that stop working.
One more thing to try: Gale (www.gale.org). Built-in public key crypto - everyone has a key, messages are automatically encrypted, etc. It even comes with a Zephyr gateway for any MIT folks. :) David -- David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson
At 11:35 AM 5/8/2001 -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
No central server appears to mean no instant messages, am I correct?
As currently implemented, probably so. This is why I'm so interested in maintaining the Any Source Multicast model, in a way that doesn't require any given group to depend on an Internet-wide rendezvous point. In other words, the network directly supports the persistent space (the multicast group) without a central server. Hmm. Is flooding the only way to do the dissemination of information without doing it client/server? === Bill Nickless http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/nickless +1 630 252 7390 PGP:0E 0F 16 80 C5 B1 69 52 E1 44 1A A5 0E 1B 74 F7 nickless@mcs.anl.gov
participants (15)
-
Albert Meyer -
Bill Nickless -
Christopher A. Woodfield -
David Schwartz -
David Shaw -
deeann mikula -
Eric Pree -
Jason Slagle -
ken harris. -
Kevin Gannon -
Peter van Dijk -
poptix -
Scott Francis -
Sean Donelan -
Shawn McMahon