Re: the right ircd for Blitzed

Andy Smith wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 07:49:24PM -0400, Michael Reynolds wrote:
>> Andy Smith wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 10:52:43PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
<snip>

> I must disagree that this is the only reason.  I know HE.net blocks 
> IRC, but HE.net is an American IPv6 tunnel provider.  We already know
> that North America doesn't really care about IPv6, but there is a lot
> to IPv6 outside of North America.

The new bahamut config layout, I am told, is to prepare for IPv6 
implementation, but it's not something they're looking at in the 
immediate future. (bind format)

> I think that bahamut does not contain IPv6 because it makes the 
> coders' lives more difficult.  The Azzurra patch which I've seen (and
> we use on that one server) shows this up: the presentation format of
> IPv4 addresses is inconsistent, klines and akills have problems
> matching and even being set on IPv6 IPs, basically the handling of
> IPs all over the ircd has to be changed so I can see why they would
> rather not bother.

The only places that I've seen with widespread native support for IPv6 
are the Norse countries.  Other than Europe, do any other locations have 
native support for end users?  And yeah, I must agree, doing IP akills 
with IPv6 is going to be hell.

<snip>

> We don't currently turn away users for "DNS SPAM", we just laugh at 
> them.

That's OK by me.

<snip>

> That is cetainly a possiblity, although many networks seem to have 
> hostmasking without problems, I am not sure they also ban file 
> trading although I'm in favour of that too.

<snip>

> But Unreal is also used by a LOT more networks than bahamut is, and 
> bahamut's web site efforts are always laughable.  So I'm not 
> surprised that news of any given exploit in Unreal travels further 
> than bahamut.

 From what I've seen, networks of decent size avoid Unreal like the 
plague due to its past.

> However I do concede that Unreal undoubtedly has more exploits in it 
> due to it being a larger code base, and when a new one is found we 
> would be ripe for targeting.

Bahamut exploits are far and few between.  In fact, I can only recall 
one issue where a vulnerability was exploitable to the point that it 
demanded an immediate fix.

<snip>

> All of those "features" can be disabled.  umode +I isn't even in the 
> code anymore.

Damn, I missed that?  It's come a long way since I set my opinion in stone.