[ircd-ratbox] Burst before verifying timestamp?
wcampbel at botbay.net
Fri Jan 2 15:49:22 EST 2004
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko wrote:
> Alright, so I do a simply telnet into the IRC server and register myself as
> a server with a bogus timestamp that's so old it makes me look like a time
> traveller. Why does the server send all the synchronization information
> prior to verifying the timestamp's validity? I'm no genius but this does
> not seem very logical and in situations where two large servers might link
> and synchronize only for them to finally realize the timestamp is invalid;
> result in both a waste of time and bandwidth.
SVINFO isn't logical. It's a legacy thing from when the TS protocol
was developed. Theoretically, nothing bad will happen with off
clocks (practice proves otherwise), but orabidoo put that check in
just to catch ones that are majorly off. He set up SVINFO to be done
after the SERVER line was accepted to prevent delays when connecting
due to DNS/identd checks and network issues. If a server connects,
sends the message, then is kept waiting for a lengthy DNS check for
upwards of 30 seconds, when the SVINFO message is actually parsed,
there will be a delay. Now, it's almost too late to change anything
without a major protocol shift.
More information about the ircd-ratbox