|
|
|
iceziin
|
|
iceziin
|
Hi!
Why mIRC can't support TCP (or something) to send/receive files?
I can't s/r files because the protocol is UDP (DCC? Don't know), and I hate use MSN to do this.
Thanks!
Last edited by iceziin; 05/07/08 10:11 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 701
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 701 |
DCC, the protocol mIRC uses to transfer files, is already TCP-only.
Saturn, QuakeNet staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
iceziin
|
|
iceziin
|
Well, so why many users can't send/receive files using mIRC?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 701
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 701 |
Because those people haven't set up their environment correctly for this. Take a look at the Cant DCC send thread for lots of information on this topic. DCC is a simple protocol that is fairly prone to such setup problems, but it's the only file exchange protocol that is supported by all (serious) IRC clients. In comparison, as Microsoft can basically dictate how MSN clients must work, they can do much more to determine and work around connection problems.
Saturn, QuakeNet staff
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 331
Pan-dimensional mouse
|
|
Pan-dimensional mouse
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 331 |
its also run through the irc server
so many servers have it disabled
|
|
|
|
|
|
iceziin
|
|
iceziin
|
Yeah, but mIRC could be better on issues of sending/receiving files. Better than MSN, i think.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,641
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,641 |
@iceziin:
it already works great if you configure it properly. MSN is equally bad at sending files if neither user is configured to properly send-- the only difference is that MSN allows file transfers to go through microsoft's servers when no direct connection is established allowing for a *much* slower transfer but reliable connectability. IRC *cannot* do this, and therefore mIRC cannot compete. The slow-transfer through msn sucks anyway, so there's no point in trying to emulate it.
@foshizzle:
what's run through the IRC server? DCC does not depend on an IRC server to work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,168
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,168 |
The initial connection for the DCC is sent via the server, as that is how the proper IP address is looked up. Once that initial connection is established, then the DCC does not require the server connection.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,641
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,641 |
The CTCP request sent over an IRC server for a DCC connection is only to send the request and bootstrap the connection in a convenient fashion; it has little to do with DCC itself. You can easily send/receive DCC connections without IRC if the receiver (or sender with passive dcc) knows the destination ip/port Wikipedia: Another way to initiate a DCC session is for the client to connect directly to the DCC server. Using this method, no traffic will go across the IRC network (the parties involved do not need to be connected to an IRC network in order to DCC).
Note that here they may be talking about mIRC's dcc server functionality, but you can do the same thing with any two agreeing clients, even without the dcc server protocol extension. In any case, I'm not sure what the relevance of the request is to this suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,884
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,884 |
I think foshizzle's point is that some servers filter DCC SEND messages - thereby preventing the send from taking place. In practice though that's extremely rare (I think I've only ever seen one server do that).
One thing mIRC could do to greatly reduce DCC setup issues is support UPnP.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,641
Hoopy frood
|
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,641 |
Well my point was that mIRC does have the ability to bypass the server when sending a dcc request, so the filtering problem can already be solved by configuration.
Besides UPnP support and some send-speed efficiency complaints, mIRC's implementation of DCC doesn't really have any problems- it's fully functional if configured properly. The problem with DCC is really a usability issue, in that many users find it difficult to configure.. so yes, given the real problem, UPnP would help- though with routers having sparse UPnP support and with those that do having it off by default, I'm not sure how much it would help users who are unable/not skilled enough to configure their routers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MeStinkBAD
|
|
MeStinkBAD
|
Well my point was that mIRC does have the ability to bypass the server when sending a dcc request, so the filtering problem can already be solved by configuration.
Besides UPnP support and some send-speed efficiency complaints, mIRC's implementation of DCC doesn't really have any problems- it's fully functional if configured properly. The problem with DCC is really a usability issue, in that many users find it difficult to configure.. so yes, given the real problem, UPnP would help- though with routers having sparse UPnP support and with those that do having it off by default, I'm not sure how much it would help users who are unable/not skilled enough to configure their routers. It should support both UPnP and PMP-NAT. It should also be able to obtain both one's remote IP and local IP. Why does the local host section in the options still exist? Sheesh...
|
|
|
|
|
