Hi,
there are two things I would like to comment/change in LW's Gnutella proposals, handshake upwards compatibilty [1] and branding superpeers 'ultrapeers' [2].
About v0.6 handshake upwards compatibility. A client should not respond with "GNUTELLA/0.6 200 OK" when a v0.7 client (or above) connects. Instead it should respond with "GNUTELLA/0.6 501 Not Implemented". A sample handshake (taken from my
v0.7 proposal, plz adjust to v0.6 needs!):
Code:
Client Server Comments
-----------------------------------------------------------
CONNECT REQUEST GNUTELLA/0.8<cr><lf> <- new version!?!
User-Agent: AoloA/1.8<cr><lf>
<cr><lf>
GNUTELLA/0.7 501 Not Implemented<cr><lf>
User-Agent: AoloA/1.7<cr><lf>
Gnutella-Protocol: 0.7, 0.4
<cr><lf> <- Server doesn't disconnect
CONNECT REQUEST GNUTELLA/0.7<cr><lf> <- Client starts over
User-Agent: AoloA/1.8<cr><lf>
<cr><lf>
GNUTELLA/0.7 200 OK<cr><lf>
User-Agent: Aoloa/1.7<cr><lf>
Your-IP: 194.246.250.222<cr><lf>
<cr><lf>
[binary messages] [binary messages] About "Ultrapeer". There has been no need IMHO to brand superpeers 'ultrapeers'. Can we just forget about marketing and name them simply 'Superpeers' or 'Superservants' please. :-) Only the name '
Supernode' is trademarked (Kazaa/Morpheus/Grokster use only this term on their webpages, eDonkey uses the term 'server'), everything else is free. AFAIK good old Clip2 was first mentioning superpeers or refelectors.
Hope you like it, Moak
[1] Gnutella v0.6 Handshake -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gd...Gnutella06.txt
[2] "Ultra"peers -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gd...ltrapeers.html (Yahoo account required)