Bug 11848 - Firmware update fails if IP address is rate limited
: Firmware update fails if IP address is rate limited
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 11766
Product: SB Touch
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Networking
: unspecified
: PC Windows XP
: -- normal (vote)
: 8.0.0
Assigned To: Brandon Black
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-04-18 08:53 UTC by Mickey Gee
Modified: 2009-09-08 09:31 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Category: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Mickey Gee 2009-04-18 08:53:57 UTC
According to this post by Triode, 

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=62501

"At present if your IP address is rate limited then fab4 will fail to download new firmware and hence the user will think it is useless...

Although we speculate that rate limiting is needed because of rogue SC instances, I think it is dangerous to assume that there won't be cases where there are new fab4 users sharing the same address with something which triggered the rate limiting."
Comment 1 Felix Mueller 2009-04-18 14:22:08 UTC
Andy: Is that yours or Brandons?
Comment 2 Andy Grundman 2009-04-18 14:26:10 UTC
Yeah I think we need to tone it down.
Comment 3 Adrian Smith 2009-04-20 11:15:55 UTC
This is actually the same topic as bug 11766..

The one thing to probably look at on SP is a retry mechanism for the firmware download.  I've not tested in detail, but a quick look at the code suggested it won't retry if the initial http request is refused?  This is what happens when the rate limiting kicks in.
Comment 4 Brandon Black 2009-04-20 12:13:29 UTC
Currently firmware is hosted on downloads.slimdevices.com (which the canonical hostnames update.slimdevices.com and update.squeezenetwork.com resolve to), and we're moving that to squeezenetwork itself per bug 11776 asap.  SN has different ratelimiting, and we can adjust as we observe there to make sure we don't have any issues.
Comment 5 Brandon Black 2009-04-20 12:14:49 UTC
sorry, that link above should have been 11766, typo :)
Comment 6 Brandon Black 2009-04-21 17:26:46 UTC
Closing this as a dupe since it's being covered in 11766

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 11766 ***