The Erlang way - dynamic upgrade of a server and UBF extensions

Peter-Henry Mander erlang@REDACTED
Wed Apr 30 15:57:55 CEST 2003

And here's my 1e-2 Euros.

About the idea of embedding IP addresses in the IP packet data: please 
don't do it! If your packet passes through a NAT/PAT firewall/router 
you're embedded addresses become meaningless. I don't know what to 
suggest in it's place though, sorry.


Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> If I may drop my two-pence in this conversations, there are some things I
> came to think about:
> - the versioning problem is not UBF related. The same applies to any
> client-server communication. Maybe a protocol_version-negotiating protocol
> is needed, if there aren't any already.
> - about sending IP addresses in packets: seems a bit heavy on the band...
> And this also applies to communication between regular Erlang processes:
> just replace "IP" with "Pid". Usually in Erlang process registration is not
> too heavyweight, but already the global registration is on the edge to
> become so, I think.
>     One way to solve this would be to take our own medicine: separate the
> normal behaviour from the exceptional cases and let some kind of supervisor
> process notify clients of a process that the Pid is no longer valid. In this
> case the supervisor would be more of a proxy. Likewise, a server should not
> try to do it's own load balancing, but let a specialized part of the system
> handle this case too.
> Just some quick thoughts, but maybe there lies something interesting here.
> Best regards,
> Vlad

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list