[erlang-questions] Idea for deprecating EPMD

[Kenji Rikitake]

> My questions for the list are:
> * Are you annoyed by epmd too?

Yes. The age of sunrpc should have been ended 10 years ago (though I
know it's really a hard task as Craig writes). And it's not firewall or
filtering friendly at all.

> * Do you think this idea is worth me writing up into an EEP or writing a pull request?

Yes, highly appreciated.

> * Do you think this idea is unworkable for some reason I’m overlooking?

Sergey Aleynikov made a very good point on this, especially on
supporting multiple transport protocols.  At least tcp4 and tcp6 should
be simultaneously usable.

Regards,
Kenji Rikitake

++> Geoff Cant <nem@REDACTED> [2015-12-08 15:57:06 -0800]:
> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:57:06 -0800
> From: Geoff Cant <nem@REDACTED>
> To: Erlang Questions <erlang-questions@REDACTED>
> Subject: [erlang-questions] Idea for deprecating EPMD
> 
> Hi all, I find EPMD to be a regular frustration when deploying and operating Erlang systems. EPMD is a separate service that needs to be running for Erlang distribution to work properly, and usually (in systems that don’t use distribution for their main function) it's not set up right, and you only notice in production because the only time you use for distribution is to get a remote shell (over localhost). (Maybe I’m just bad at doing this, but I do it a lot)
> 
> Erlang node names already encode host information — ‘descriptive_name@REDACTED’. If we include the erlang distribution listen port too, that would remove the need for EPMD. For example: ‘descriptive_name@REDACTED:distribution_port’. Node names using this scheme would skip the EPMD step, otherwise erlang distribution would fall back to the current system.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> -Geoff
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions