Subject: Re: ntalk x talky
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Gordon W. Ross <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/03/1997 15:18:42
> From: Jaromir Dolecek <email@example.com>
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:08:15 +0200 (MET DST)
> Greg Hudson wrote:
> > > I once toyed with the idea of adding support for both the old and
> > > new protocols to our talkd, but did not pursue it far. Still like
> > > the idea though...
> > Hrm, this ties into my job.
> > We install the NetBSD talk and talkd on our Solaris machines so that
> > they will speak ntalk instead of big-endian otalk. Unfortunately,
> > this means they won't talk to most random Solaris machines on the net.
> > If the NetBSD talk and talkd would speak all three protocols (ntalk,
> > big-endian otalk, little-endian otalk), it would make my life easier.
> Okay, there must be two talk demons anyway (one on port 517 and one on 518).
> ntalk shouldn't be touched, you have to make otalkd aware
> of BE/LE clients "only". I wouldn't expect it's very easy - if it would be
> easy, we wouldn't have ntalkd, but just BE/LE aware otalkd ;-)
Ah yes, different port numbers. OK, a separate "otalkd" makes sense.
Here's a hack-ish suggestion: Pretend that the "otalkd" protocol was
supposed to be big-endian only (as in network byte order), and provide
a replacement "talk" client for your little-endian machines.
This would nicely accomodate the a large number of sites with lots of
SunOS and Solaris boxes that want to use "otalk-BE" protocol. If you
can make otalkd somehow discover that it is talking to an "otalk-LE"
client, that would be nice, but I'd be happy with just "otalk-BE."