From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XFgyz-00036M-Fm for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:01:09 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.218.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.43; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f43.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com ([209.85.218.43]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XFgyy-0001As-O6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:01:09 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f43.google.com with SMTP id u20so3544073oif.16 for ; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 03:01:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.159.232 with SMTP id xf8mr29163952oeb.16.1407492063269; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 03:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 03:01:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 12:01:03 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: RsrthQXdqOPxew1G-SE_rfWYIHQ Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Wladimir Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd6c4e47499cf05001b4807 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1XFgyy-0001As-O6 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_EXT_SERVICES and advertising related services X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:01:09 -0000 --047d7bd6c4e47499cf05001b4807 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > He wants to use it to advertise services that are not part of the P2P > protocol itself, but run on a different port. Reserving services bits > for those is not acceptable. > Why not? Does the port matter much? > All the NODE_EXT_SERVICES bit does is advertise the P2P "getextsrv" > command to get information, such as the port to connect on, for the > auxilary service. Yes, I understand what it does, but from a clients perspective what it means is if someone implements a useful service and exposes it this way you have to seek out, connect to and interrogate every possible server even if (say) only a handful actually provide it. The most there's >1 "ext service" the protocol becomes extremely slow, vs service bits where you can download addr packets and see which IPs are advertising which services. I don't see much reason to take a potentially large performance hit when there's a service advertisement mechanism that already works. What's wrong with the existing mechanism exactly? --047d7bd6c4e47499cf05001b4807 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
He wants to use it to advertise services that a= re not part of the P2P
protocol itself, but run on a different port. Reserving services bits
for those is not acceptable.

Why not? D= oes the port matter much?
=C2=A0
All the NODE_EXT_SERVICES bit does is advertise the P2P "getextsrv&quo= t;
command to get information, such as the port to connect on, for the
auxilary service.

Yes, I understand what it= does, but from a clients perspective what it means is if someone implement= s a useful service and exposes it this way you have to seek out, connect to= and interrogate every possible server even if (say) only a handful actuall= y provide it. The most there's >1 "ext service" the protoc= ol becomes extremely slow, vs service bits where you can download addr pack= ets and see which IPs are advertising which services.=C2=A0

I don't see much reason to take a potentially large= performance hit when there's a service advertisement mechanism that al= ready works. What's wrong with the existing mechanism exactly?
--047d7bd6c4e47499cf05001b4807--