mirror of
git://git.acid.vegas/archive.git
synced 2024-11-24 17:16:39 +00:00
564 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
564 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Network Working Group C. Kalt
|
||
Request for Comments: 2810 April 2000
|
||
Updates: 1459
|
||
Category: Informational
|
||
|
||
|
||
Internet Relay Chat: Architecture
|
||
|
||
Status of this Memo
|
||
|
||
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
|
||
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
|
||
memo is unlimited.
|
||
|
||
Copyright Notice
|
||
|
||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
|
||
The IRC (Internet Relay Chat) protocol is for use with text based
|
||
conferencing. It has been developed since 1989 when it was originally
|
||
implemented as a mean for users on a BBS to chat amongst themselves.
|
||
|
||
First formally documented in May 1993 by RFC 1459 [IRC], the protocol
|
||
has kept evolving. This document is an update describing the
|
||
architecture of the current IRC protocol and the role of its
|
||
different components. Other documents describe in detail the
|
||
protocol used between the various components defined here.
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction ............................................... 2
|
||
2. Components ................................................. 2
|
||
2.1 Servers ................................................ 2
|
||
2.2 Clients ................................................ 3
|
||
2.2.1 User Clients ...................................... 3
|
||
2.2.2 Service Clients ................................... 3
|
||
3. Architecture ............................................... 3
|
||
4. IRC Protocol Services ...................................... 4
|
||
4.1 Client Locator ......................................... 4
|
||
4.2 Message Relaying ....................................... 4
|
||
4.3 Channel Hosting And Management ......................... 4
|
||
5. IRC Concepts ............................................... 4
|
||
5.1 One-To-One Communication ............................... 5
|
||
5.2 One-To-Many ............................................ 5
|
||
5.2.1 To A Channel ...................................... 5
|
||
5.2.2 To A Host/Server Mask ............................. 6
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kalt Informational [Page 1]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2810 Internet Relay Chat: Architecture April 2000
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.2.3 To A List ......................................... 6
|
||
5.3 One-To-All ............................................. 6
|
||
5.3.1 Client-to-Client .................................. 6
|
||
5.3.2 Client-to-Server .................................. 7
|
||
5.3.3 Server-to-Server .................................. 7
|
||
6. Current Problems ........................................... 7
|
||
6.1 Scalability ............................................ 7
|
||
6.2 Reliability ............................................ 7
|
||
6.3 Network Congestion ..................................... 7
|
||
6.4 Privacy ................................................ 8
|
||
7. Security Considerations .................................... 8
|
||
8. Current Support And Availability ........................... 8
|
||
9. Acknowledgements ........................................... 8
|
||
10. References ................................................ 8
|
||
11. Author's Address .......................................... 9
|
||
12. Full Copyright Statement .................................. 10
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction
|
||
|
||
The IRC (Internet Relay Chat) protocol has been designed over a
|
||
number of years for use with text based conferencing. This document
|
||
describes its current architecture.
|
||
|
||
The IRC Protocol is based on the client-server model, and is well
|
||
suited to running on many machines in a distributed fashion. A
|
||
typical setup involves a single process (the server) forming a
|
||
central point for clients (or other servers) to connect to,
|
||
performing the required message delivery/multiplexing and other
|
||
functions.
|
||
|
||
This distributed model, which requires each server to have a copy
|
||
of the global state information, is still the most flagrant problem
|
||
of the protocol as it is a serious handicap, which limits the maximum
|
||
size a network can reach. If the existing networks have been able to
|
||
keep growing at an incredible pace, we must thank hardware
|
||
manufacturers for giving us ever more powerful systems.
|
||
|
||
2. Components
|
||
|
||
The following paragraphs define the basic components of the IRC
|
||
protocol.
|
||
|
||
2.1 Servers
|
||
|
||
The server forms the backbone of IRC as it is the only component
|
||
of the protocol which is able to link all the other components
|
||
together: it provides a point to which clients may connect to talk to
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kalt Informational [Page 2]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2810 Internet Relay Chat: Architecture April 2000
|
||
|
||
|
||
each other [IRC-CLIENT], and a point for other servers to connect to
|
||
[IRC-SERVER]. The server is also responsible for providing the basic
|
||
services defined by the IRC protocol.
|
||
|
||
2.2 Clients
|
||
|
||
A client is anything connecting to a server that is not another
|
||
server. There are two types of clients which both serve a different
|
||
purpose.
|
||
|
||
2.2.1 User Clients
|
||
|
||
User clients are generally programs providing a text based
|
||
interface that is used to communicate interactively via IRC. This
|
||
particular type of clients is often referred as "users".
|
||
|
||
2.2.2 Service Clients
|
||
|
||
Unlike users, service clients are not intended to be used manually
|
||
nor for talking. They have a more limited access to the chat
|
||
functions of the protocol, while optionally having access to more
|
||
private data from the servers.
|
||
|
||
Services are typically automatons used to provide some kind of
|
||
service (not necessarily related to IRC itself) to users. An example
|
||
is a service collecting statistics about the origin of users
|
||
connected on the IRC network.
|
||
|
||
3. Architecture
|
||
|
||
An IRC network is defined by a group of servers connected to each
|
||
other. A single server forms the simplest IRC network.
|
||
|
||
The only network configuration allowed for IRC servers is that of
|
||
a spanning tree where each server acts as a central node for the rest
|
||
of the network it sees.
|
||
|
||
1--\
|
||
A D---4
|
||
2--/ \ /
|
||
B----C
|
||
/ \
|
||
3 E
|
||
|
||
Servers: A, B, C, D, E Clients: 1, 2, 3, 4
|
||
|
||
[ Fig. 1. Sample small IRC network ]
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kalt Informational [Page 3]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2810 Internet Relay Chat: Architecture April 2000
|
||
|
||
|
||
The IRC protocol provides no mean for two clients to directly
|
||
communicate. All communication between clients is relayed by the
|
||
server(s).
|
||
|
||
4. IRC Protocol Services
|
||
|
||
This section describes the services offered by the IRC protocol. The
|
||
combination of these services allow real-time conferencing.
|
||
|
||
4.1 Client Locator
|
||
|
||
To be able to exchange messages, two clients must be able to locate
|
||
each other.
|
||
|
||
Upon connecting to a server, a client registers using a label which
|
||
is then used by other servers and clients to know where the client is
|
||
located. Servers are responsible for keeping track of all the labels
|
||
being used.
|
||
|
||
4.2 Message Relaying
|
||
|
||
The IRC protocol provides no mean for two clients to directly
|
||
communicate. All communication between clients is relayed by the
|
||
server(s).
|
||
|
||
4.3 Channel Hosting And Management
|
||
|
||
A channel is a named group of one or more users which will all
|
||
receive messages addressed to that channel. A channel is
|
||
characterized by its name and current members, it also has a set of
|
||
properties which can be manipulated by (some of) its members.
|
||
|
||
Channels provide a mean for a message to be sent to several clients.
|
||
Servers host channels, providing the necessary message multiplexing.
|
||
Servers are also responsible for managing channels by keeping track
|
||
of the channel members. The exact role of servers is defined in
|
||
"Internet Relay Chat: Channel Management" [IRC-CHAN].
|
||
|
||
5. IRC Concepts
|
||
|
||
This section is devoted to describing the actual concepts behind the
|
||
organization of the IRC protocol and how different classes of
|
||
messages are delivered.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kalt Informational [Page 4]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2810 Internet Relay Chat: Architecture April 2000
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.1 One-To-One Communication
|
||
|
||
Communication on a one-to-one basis is usually performed by clients,
|
||
since most server-server traffic is not a result of servers talking
|
||
only to each other. To provide a means for clients to talk to each
|
||
other, it is REQUIRED that all servers be able to send a message in
|
||
exactly one direction along the spanning tree in order to reach any
|
||
client. Thus the path of a message being delivered is the shortest
|
||
path between any two points on the spanning tree.
|
||
|
||
The following examples all refer to Figure 1 above.
|
||
|
||
Example 1: A message between clients 1 and 2 is only seen by server
|
||
A, which sends it straight to client 2.
|
||
|
||
Example 2: A message between clients 1 and 3 is seen by servers A &
|
||
B, and client 3. No other clients or servers are allowed see the
|
||
message.
|
||
|
||
Example 3: A message between clients 2 and 4 is seen by servers A, B,
|
||
C & D and client 4 only.
|
||
|
||
5.2 One-To-Many
|
||
|
||
The main goal of IRC is to provide a forum which allows easy and
|
||
efficient conferencing (one to many conversations). IRC offers
|
||
several means to achieve this, each serving its own purpose.
|
||
|
||
5.2.1 To A Channel
|
||
|
||
In IRC the channel has a role equivalent to that of the multicast
|
||
group; their existence is dynamic and the actual conversation carried
|
||
out on a channel MUST only be sent to servers which are supporting
|
||
users on a given channel. Moreover, the message SHALL only be sent
|
||
once to every local link as each server is responsible to fan the
|
||
original message to ensure that it will reach all the recipients.
|
||
|
||
The following examples all refer to Figure 2.
|
||
|
||
Example 4: Any channel with 1 client in it. Messages to the channel
|
||
go to the server and then nowhere else.
|
||
|
||
Example 5: 2 clients in a channel. All messages traverse a path as if
|
||
they were private messages between the two clients outside a
|
||
channel.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kalt Informational [Page 5]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2810 Internet Relay Chat: Architecture April 2000
|
||
|
||
|
||
Example 6: Clients 1, 2 and 3 in a channel. All messages to the
|
||
channel are sent to all clients and only those servers which must
|
||
be traversed by the message if it were a private message to a
|
||
single client. If client 1 sends a message, it goes back to
|
||
client 2 and then via server B to client 3.
|
||
|
||
5.2.2 To A Host/Server Mask
|
||
|
||
To provide with some mechanism to send messages to a large body of
|
||
related users, host and server mask messages are available. These
|
||
messages are sent to users whose host or server information match
|
||
that of the mask. The messages are only sent to locations where
|
||
users are, in a fashion similar to that of channels.
|
||
|
||
5.2.3 To A List
|
||
|
||
The least efficient style of one-to-many conversation is through
|
||
clients talking to a 'list' of targets (client, channel, mask). How
|
||
this is done is almost self explanatory: the client gives a list of
|
||
destinations to which the message is to be delivered and the server
|
||
breaks it up and dispatches a separate copy of the message to each
|
||
given destination.
|
||
|
||
This is not as efficient as using a channel since the destination
|
||
list MAY be broken up and the dispatch sent without checking to make
|
||
sure duplicates aren't sent down each path.
|
||
|
||
5.3 One-To-All
|
||
|
||
The one-to-all type of message is better described as a broadcast
|
||
message, sent to all clients or servers or both. On a large network
|
||
of users and servers, a single message can result in a lot of traffic
|
||
being sent over the network in an effort to reach all of the desired
|
||
destinations.
|
||
|
||
For some class of messages, there is no option but to broadcast it to
|
||
all servers so that the state information held by each server is
|
||
consistent between servers.
|
||
|
||
5.3.1 Client-to-Client
|
||
|
||
There is no class of message which, from a single message, results in
|
||
a message being sent to every other client.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kalt Informational [Page 6]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2810 Internet Relay Chat: Architecture April 2000
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.3.2 Client-to-Server
|
||
|
||
Most of the commands which result in a change of state information
|
||
(such as channel membership, channel mode, user status, etc.) MUST be
|
||
sent to all servers by default, and this distribution SHALL NOT be
|
||
changed by the client.
|
||
|
||
5.3.3 Server-to-Server
|
||
|
||
While most messages between servers are distributed to all 'other'
|
||
servers, this is only required for any message that affects a user,
|
||
channel or server. Since these are the basic items found in IRC,
|
||
nearly all messages originating from a server are broadcast to all
|
||
other connected servers.
|
||
|
||
6. Current Problems
|
||
|
||
There are a number of recognized problems with this protocol, this
|
||
section only addresses the problems related to the architecture of
|
||
the protocol.
|
||
|
||
6.1 Scalability
|
||
|
||
It is widely recognized that this protocol does not scale
|
||
sufficiently well when used in a large arena. The main problem comes
|
||
from the requirement that all servers know about all other servers,
|
||
clients and channels and that information regarding them be updated
|
||
as soon as it changes.
|
||
|
||
6.2 Reliability
|
||
|
||
As the only network configuration allowed for IRC servers is that of
|
||
a spanning tree, each link between two servers is an obvious and
|
||
quite serious point of failure. This particular issue is addressed
|
||
more in detail in "Internet Relay Chat: Server Protocol" [IRC-
|
||
SERVER].
|
||
|
||
6.3 Network Congestion
|
||
|
||
Another problem related to the scalability and reliability issues, as
|
||
well as the spanning tree architecture, is that the protocol and
|
||
architecture for IRC are extremely vulnerable to network congestions.
|
||
This problem is endemic, and should be solved for the next
|
||
generation: if congestion and high traffic volume cause a link
|
||
between two servers to fail, not only this failure generates more
|
||
network traffic, but the reconnection (eventually elsewhere) of two
|
||
servers also generates more traffic.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kalt Informational [Page 7]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2810 Internet Relay Chat: Architecture April 2000
|
||
|
||
|
||
In an attempt to minimize the impact of these problems, it is
|
||
strongly RECOMMENDED that servers do not automatically try to
|
||
reconnect too fast, in order to avoid aggravating the situation.
|
||
|
||
6.4 Privacy
|
||
|
||
Besides not scaling well, the fact that servers need to know all
|
||
information about other entities, the issue of privacy is also a
|
||
concern. This is in particular true for channels, as the related
|
||
information is quite a lot more revealing than whether a user is
|
||
online or not.
|
||
|
||
7. Security Considerations
|
||
|
||
Asides from the privacy concerns mentioned in section 6.4 (Privacy),
|
||
security is believed to be irrelevant to this document.
|
||
|
||
8. Current Support And Availability
|
||
|
||
Mailing lists for IRC related discussion:
|
||
General discussion: ircd-users@irc.org
|
||
Protocol development: ircd-dev@irc.org
|
||
|
||
Software implementations:
|
||
ftp://ftp.irc.org/irc/server
|
||
ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/unix/irc
|
||
ftp://coombs.anu.edu.au/pub/irc
|
||
|
||
Newsgroup: alt.irc
|
||
|
||
9. Acknowledgements
|
||
|
||
Parts of this document were copied from the RFC 1459 [IRC] which
|
||
first formally documented the IRC Protocol. It has also benefited
|
||
from many rounds of review and comments. In particular, the
|
||
following people have made significant contributions to this
|
||
document:
|
||
|
||
Matthew Green, Michael Neumayer, Volker Paulsen, Kurt Roeckx, Vesa
|
||
Ruokonen, Magnus Tjernstrom, Stefan Zehl.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kalt Informational [Page 8]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2810 Internet Relay Chat: Architecture April 2000
|
||
|
||
|
||
10. References
|
||
|
||
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
|
||
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
|
||
|
||
[IRC] Oikarinen, J. and D. Reed, "Internet Relay Chat
|
||
Protocol", RFC 1459, May 1993.
|
||
|
||
[IRC-CLIENT] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Client Protocol", RFC
|
||
2812, April 2000.
|
||
|
||
[IRC-SERVER] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Server Protocol", RFC
|
||
2813, April 2000.
|
||
|
||
[IRC-CHAN] Kalt, C., "Internet Relay Chat: Channel Management", RFC
|
||
2811, April 2000.
|
||
|
||
11. Author's Address
|
||
|
||
Christophe Kalt
|
||
99 Teaneck Rd, Apt #117
|
||
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
|
||
USA
|
||
|
||
EMail: kalt@stealth.net
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kalt Informational [Page 9]
|
||
|
||
RFC 2810 Internet Relay Chat: Architecture April 2000
|
||
|
||
|
||
12. Full Copyright Statement
|
||
|
||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
|
||
|
||
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
|
||
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
|
||
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
|
||
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
|
||
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
|
||
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
|
||
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
|
||
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
|
||
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
|
||
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
|
||
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
|
||
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
|
||
English.
|
||
|
||
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
|
||
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
|
||
|
||
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
|
||
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
|
||
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
|
||
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
|
||
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
|
||
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
|
||
|
||
Acknowledgement
|
||
|
||
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
|
||
Internet Society.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kalt Informational [Page 10]
|
||
|