BNLS

[Denial]

Has there been any changes to bnls since it came back up?

IE: limited amount of time to reconnect bots to bnls using the same ip address and such?

[UserLoser]

Has there been any changes to bnls since it came back up?

IE: limited amount of time to reconnect bots to bnls using the same ip address and such?

Why don't you spam it and find out? 

[brew]

Yes yes there have been denial. You cannot maintain more then two connections to BNLS per ip. And I believe there is a way to "flood out" too. The packet you receive from BNLS to notify you that you were ipbanned has a header of 0xFF, and contains an ntstring saying "You have been banned from BNLS".

[Don Cullen]

Posted in the wrong forum.

Mod recommendation: move thread to bnet botdev forum.

[Denial]

Hmmm i wonder if we can make acceptions to this due to i load like 19 bots on all 4 realms for people to host bots and such.

So far ive gotten around it by waiting a little bit then connecting another bot but it does seem to be annoying at first.

[Mystical]

Yes yes there have been denial. You cannot maintain more then two connections to BNLS per ip. And I believe there is a way to "flood out" too. The packet you receive from BNLS to notify you that you were ipbanned has a header of 0xFF, and contains an ntstring saying "You have been banned from BNLS".

It sure would seem stupid if thats his way of protecting BNLS from getting loaded on, 2 bots per IP? most people use 1 proxy per bot well thats how it was when i use to load back n the day. also i've already still seen a load today.

anyways can anyone else confirm this?

EDIT: I just confirmed that i loaded 3 bots via BNLS @useast.

[brew]

Hmmm i wonder if we can make acceptions to this due to i load like 19 bots on all 4 realms for people to host bots and such.

So far ive gotten around it by waiting a little bit then connecting another bot but it does seem to be annoying at first.

You really only need one bnls connection.... keep in mind that normally bots disconnect from bnls after receiving the data...

[Hdx]

There haven't been any changes announced for BNLS no.
Ringo's server does IPBan people and send a message to them if they are banned.
Besides that theres nothing new (And that really isnt BNLS)
~Hdx

[brew]

okay!?

[Spht]

okay!?
Hdx, are you sure? I asked spht and he verified the changes to bnls I asked him about.

No I didn't.  As a matter of fact, I've never talked to you before

Edit:  I'm guessing this was you:

(2007-02-27)
[18:31:19] asdfasdf5364@USEast joined the channel using Starcraft: Brood War.
[18:31:24] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> uhh.. hey spht you there
[18:33:04] <Spht> hi
[18:33:54] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> hey
[18:34:06] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> could you get ipbanned from BNLS if you send too many packets too fast
[18:34:23] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> if so plz tell me what's the recommended send rate
[18:34:49] <Spht> why woudl yuo be sending lots of packets?  you just use bnsl to get on bnet
[18:34:54] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> uh
[18:35:02] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> yes ^^ exactly i need to get on bnet
[18:35:16] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> lets say i have a bunch of checksum formulas. and i need to find the checksum to them.
[18:35:33] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> i would test them like 3-5 at a time
[18:35:36] <Spht> so you're using bnls to map out all the possible results from lockdown?
[18:35:54] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> yes
[18:36:00] <Spht> why are you on smurf account?
[18:36:03] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> im not
[18:36:06] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> this is my name
[18:36:09] <record>
[18:36:09] Name = asdfasdf5364@USEast
[18:36:09] </record>
[18:36:21] <asdfasdf5364@USEast> everyone knows asdfasdf5364....
[18:36:25] asdfasdf5364@USEast was banned by Spht (yes bnls will probably ban you for doing that).
[18:36:25] asdfasdf5364@USEast left the channel.
[18:36:46] <From: asdfasdf5364@USEast> :-(


I wouldn't call that confirming anything...

[brew]

what?!?! That's not me.

[Hdx]

Hehe, And acording to Sky (Long time ago)
It's better to have one connection with all the crevs you need.
What i'll be doing in my future bots is just having one connection to BNLS at all times.
And just passing info for all the clients there there.
Which, I *think* is the best way to go.
~Hdx

[Ante]

Hehe, And acording to Sky (Long time ago)
It's better to have one connection with all the crevs you need.
What i'll be doing in my future bots is just having one connection to BNLS at all times.
And just passing info for all the clients there there.
Which, I *think* is the best way to go.
~Hdx

if about 10 crevs are sent in one connection, only about 5 crevs are returned.
i tested that myself.

[Barabajagal]

Ya, BNLS is getting more resistant to constant CRev requests... Maybe people won't abuse bot abilities anymore...

[brew]

Here's an even better way to take stress off the bnls server: Release the checkrevision code, so formulating the checksum can be done locally.