Re^8: UDP server with IO::Socket::INET

Ok, so your suggestion that multicast is an alternative to ICMP is wrong. You need some kind of connection and disconnection mechanism whether or not multicasting is used.

Note that I don't think ICMP would even work as a disconnection mechanism. It will only tell you whether the machine is reachable (and might not even do that with firewalls), not if a UDP port is reachable.

but that's part of the beauty of multicast.

It's part of the beauty of UDP, as it is what allows multicast to exist.

Comment on Re^8: UDP server with IO::Socket::INET

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: UDP server with IO::Socket::INET by rowdog (Curate) on Mar 06, 2010 at 17:39 UTC
Ok, so your suggestion that multicast is an alternative to ICMP is wrong. You need some kind of connection and disconnection mechanism whether or not multicasting is used. What the fuck are you rambling on about now? Multicast explicitly does NOT require the server to know ANYTHING about the clients. You're just twisting my words to prove that you're smart and I'm dumb. Go away troll.	[reply]
Re^10: UDP server with IO::Socket::INET by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 06, 2010 at 21:02 UTC
No, it's simply a question that I don't quite know how it works. I'm going from what you said, and you told me that defunct clients don't get dropped from a multicast group automatically. That means a disconnection mechanism is needed. Was I misinformed?	[reply]
Re^11: UDP server with IO::Socket::INET by Anonymous Monk on Mar 06, 2010 at 21:43 UTC
Questions end with question marks, you were trolling	[reply]
Re^12: UDP server with IO::Socket::INET by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 06, 2010 at 22:44 UTC
Re^13: UDP server with IO::Socket::INET by Anonymous Monk on Mar 06, 2010 at 22:56 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^12: UDP server with IO::Socket::INET by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 06, 2010 at 22:47 UTC
Re^11: UDP server with IO::Socket::INET by rowdog (Curate) on Mar 19, 2010 at 03:23 UTC
I suppose that where we got crossed is that I was just trying to provide the OP with avenues of exploration, but I'm by no means any kind of authority on multicast, which is why I provided the link to the OP. You definitely misinterpreted what I (mis?) said and, at the time, I was sure it was deliberate, which is why I was pissed off and called you a troll. You're a bright boy and I have a bad temper. I expected that you would have had some insight into multicast, or would at least read something about it on wikipedia or an RFC (which I linked to for you) before you misinterpreted me and put words in my mouth. If my expectations were wrong and you were just being a human and didn't understand, then I apologize for the Ad Hominem attack. If not, well, if the shoe fits... Anyhow, I do respect your intellect and understanding of Perl though you do have a tendency to be a bit contentious. Even if you were trolling a bit, you're not actually a troll.	[reply]