http://blogs.gentoo.org/kingtaco?disp=comments en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:10:30 +0000 Diego \\\'Flameeyes\\\' Petten [Visitor] c18913@http://blogs.gentoo.org/ It would be nice to have something similar with ZeroConf/Avahi, considering that it's easier for users to have avahi present rather than slp :)<br /> ]]> http://blogs.gentoo.org/kingtaco/2007/06/03/local_mirror_inactivity_got_you_down#c18913 Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:25:10 +0000 KingTaco [Member] c18912@http://blogs.gentoo.org/ put SLP on the router(s). The SLP protocol isn't (easily) routed, but the rest are. There is no reason why the slpd service has to reside on the rsync/distfiles server other than ease. http://blogs.gentoo.org/kingtaco/2007/06/03/local_mirror_inactivity_got_you_down#c18912 Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:17:06 +0000 Christian [Visitor] c18911@http://blogs.gentoo.org/ I like the idea, it's not bad at all.<br /> <br /> But as I already said, I'd like to see something traversing above router borders, which isn't going to happen. For example at work we have seperated networks, like .6 for all employees and .7 for all the server boxen.<br /> <br /> But the ftp (and thus the mirror carrying the SLP) is in a seperated network (DMZ), which somewhat defeats all the above .. :(<br /> <br /> Even if I would put a seperate box (or even a seperate NIC) into the server subnet, only a part of those would see the SLP.
But as I already said, I'd like to see something traversing above router borders, which isn't going to happen. For example at work we have seperated networks, like .6 for all employees and .7 for all the server boxen.

But the ftp (and thus the mirror carrying the SLP) is in a seperated network (DMZ), which somewhat defeats all the above .. :(

Even if I would put a seperate box (or even a seperate NIC) into the server subnet, only a part of those would see the SLP.]]> http://blogs.gentoo.org/kingtaco/2007/06/03/local_mirror_inactivity_got_you_down#c18911