Contact

[General Shadow]

Does someone have a contact for Ghost Ship?

[»freakmonger]

its around here if you search, but may I ask why?

[General Shadow]

Still trying to get SSC access...I was told Ghost Ship had a contact for the guy who can get me it.

[BDwinsAlt]

Still trying to get SSC access...I was told Ghost Ship had a contact for the guy who can get me it.

This really sounds like a drug deal. Can we fix this? Maybe have an application process and a review. Anyway, you're right, only Ghost Ship or Polix can probably help you, and I'm pretty sure Polix goes to Ghost Ship anyway. Just message polix and see what's up.

[L.C.]

Still trying to get SSC access...I was told Ghost Ship had a contact for the guy who can get me it.

This really sounds like a drug deal. Can we fix this? Maybe have an application process and a review. Anyway, you're right, only Ghost Ship or Polix can probably help you, and I'm pretty sure Polix goes to Ghost Ship anyway. Just message polix and see what's up.

Actually what needs to happen before going to Ghost Ship is to first get Priit to whitelist BlueT's server on SSC's firewall. Without this happening, it won't matter if a zone on BlueT has SSC authorization or not; our servers are not allowed to connect to SSC via their firewall. Edited January 19, 2010 by L.C.

[PoLiX]

True. BlueT needs to submit an app to SSC for SSC approval.

[General Shadow]

True. BlueT needs to submit an app to SSC for SSC approval.

Any how would that be done?

[PoLiX]

L.C. requests SSC from the council. E-mails either myself or another council member, we forward it on and vote. Pretty much states information on his server, who the admins are, and what zones he hosts. The council decides from there.

 

Guidelines should hopefully be out soon. They are being pulled back for more modifications before they are voted on again. They passed but was still some work needed.

[L.C.]

http://www.hlrse.net/Qwerty/ss_zoneproxybiller.png

[Death+]

L.C,

 

After all these years you still remember me doing that don't you .

 

Use to do that when developing. G.S said it was fine back then.

[L.C.]

Hi D+!

 

Hmm, I don't remember the details, but I believe you had some funky setups going on there.

 

PS. Just realized one way that illustration could easily be done is with your common firewall control that comes with dedicated servers from your datacenter provider. Hardware like WatchGuard's Firebox could do it too. One would set the billing IP to ProxyA's IP, and then there would be a rule setup in ProxyA's firewall that upon receiving an incoming transmission from ServerA on a specific port, forward that to ServerB on that same port, vice versa.

Edited January 19, 2010 by L.C.

[»Lynx]

Pointless lag.

[BDwinsAlt]

Pointless lag.

Well all it really does is relay messages across zones and store scores, so really even if it took 100ms, that's not too bad.

[»Lynx]

It relays everything that's sent to the biller, which is more than messages and scores (which brings up trust issues), then of course I'd be inclined to agree that the lag never mattered... If Continuum never used UDP for chat. Either way, D+ used it for development, I wouldn't suggest it for permanent zone hosting.

[Dr Brain]

Yes, but people could access that information whether it's directly connected to the biller or connected through a proxy. That's why only trusted hosts are allowed to connect to the biller.