Hey, I just noticed CF doesn't support MCCP (at least when I tried it, it didnt work). For those who don't know, MCCP stands for Mud Client Compression Protocol and basically reduces latency on client side and server workload if enough people use it. I think it's freeware but I'm not 100% sure. You can get a copy a free copy of MCCP if you just google it and its a snap to setup.

I think enabling MCCP will be a great way of reducing bandwidth usage which everyone is for. Just wanted to inform the immortals in case they didn't know about it and consider implementing it.

>Hey, I just noticed CF doesn't support MCCP (at least when I
>tried it, it didnt work). For those who don't know, MCCP
>stands for Mud Client Compression Protocol and basically
>reduces latency on client side and server workload if enough
>people use it. I think it's freeware but I'm not 100% sure.
>You can get a copy a free copy of MCCP if you just google it
>and its a snap to setup.
>
>I think enabling MCCP will be a great way of reducing
>bandwidth usage which everyone is for. Just wanted to inform
>the immortals in case they didn't know about it and consider
>implementing it.

It trades CPU/RAM processing for bandwidth. Until we got the
new server we really didn't have that as an option. At all.

If someone feels like coding it we'll do it, but realize there
is no patch (even for our unmodified codebase). This may or may
not happen.

I appreciate you bringing it up.

Qaledus

Two questions, since you seem to know something about this:

1. What's required on the client side? Some sort of local proxy that sits between your off-the-shelf client (e.g. zMud) and the MUD?

2. I can't see this being very useful for broadband users, so I'll assume the target audience is players who use dial-up. Don't the popular modem connection protocols (V.90, etc.) already include compression? If so, is MCCP even supposed to provide any benefit on the client side, or is it designed solely to reduce outbound bandwidth on the server?

A more detailed description of the subject matter cn be found here:
http://mccp.afkmud.com/
I've never programmed a MUD before so my apologies if my explanations don't make any sense.

>Two questions, since you seem to know something about this:
>
>1. What's required on the client side? Some sort of local
>proxy that sits between your off-the-shelf client (e.g. zMud)
>and the MUD?

mcclient is a proxy that that compresses in the background. Some clients come with MCCP. It opens a dos prompt and there is a small config file to edit (one line) and you're done. You can download a copt of the program here: http://www.acidspray.com/mccp.html(Yes I realize it's a competeing MUD's website!) I think either the server or the MUD has to enable MCCP for mcclient to compress and send to the server though since when I tried it nothing happened. But this I am not sure of.

>2. I can't see this being very useful for broadband users, so
>I'll assume the target audience is players who use dial-up.
>Don't the popular modem connection protocols (V.90, etc.)
>already include compression? If so, is MCCP even supposed to
>provide any benefit on the client side, or is it designed
>solely to reduce outbound bandwidth on the server?

You are right in that it will not be useful for the broadband users. But dialup users (yes there are still a few out there) do experience a client side decrease in latency. The server is also reduced in ongoing bandwidth. I really can't answer your modem question but I can say from personal experience that my MUDding has been smoother with the client (or maybe its just an effort justification affect, I don't know).

>mcclient is a proxy that that compresses in the background.

That answers that question. Thanks.

>You are right in that it will not be useful for the broadband
>users. But dialup users (yes there are still a few out there)
>do experience a client side decrease in latency.

Here's what I don't get. My understanding of latency is that it represents the time required for a given bit to travel from the server to my client. Bandwidth, on the other hand, is the number of bits per unit time that I can receive. Compression, then, might increase maximum bandwidth, but I'm not sure how it would decrease latency.

That's why I mentioned the compression in modem protocols. If it's already taking place, then the MCCP compression would only come into play between the server and a user's ISP. The link from ISP->User is already compressed by V.90 (or whatever).

>The server is also reduced in ongoing bandwidth.

This seems to be where the main savings would come into play. As Phaelim pointed out, you trade CPU cycles (doing the compression) in return for decreased bandwidth, which might reduce the cost required to host the mud.

For what it's worth: there seems to be a patch vs. ROM 2.4b4 that adds MCCP support. Obviously Carrion Fields has morphed considerably since ROM days, but it would be a good starting point if anyone wanted to work on it.

Apparently zMud has built-in MCCP support. If this ever gets implemented on Carrion Fields, I might try adding built-in support to yTin. I hate proxies.

Another question for mingx: When you connect to a MUD using a client that supports MCCP, is there an easy way to know whether your connection is using MCCP?

>Another question for mingx: When you connect to a MUD using a
>client that supports MCCP, is there an easy way to know
>whether your connection is using MCCP?

I've attached a jpeg with mcclient in action. The dos prompt box is the mccp client running. As time goes on, the line that says "decompressed--->..." runs down showing the amount decompressed. Why does it not say compression? I don't know. The notepad file is the config file for the mcclient. The grey box is what you would have to put in for your client. I'm using mm2k (which is an awesome and free mudclient) and the box shows what you would have to type in for the address and ports instead of "carrionfields.com 999". When I run the mcclient and set it up for CF it never shows the decompressed line in the dos prompt although it still runs so I'm guessing it just doesn't do the compression thing.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Note: I know nothing about MCCP.

1. I highly doubt it reduces latency. Increase bandwidth, sure.

2. I highly doubt it reduces server workload. Outgoing bandwidth, sure.