- HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request

Connecting to returns an HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request.

Using an IP address + port works.

Is the DNS no longer available or is it just down/broken at the moment?

UPDATE: seems to be working again. I’ll check with users if things work as expected again. ports 80 and 443 are have both been moved over to WebSockets. I would recommend using port 6667 if you are relaying on the DNS.

I imagine more servers will follow in the next week or so.

That shouldn’t make any difference when using a DNS, meaning… that’s the whole point of having one in the first place.

If they plan on pointing to a websocket, that’s just bad (put mildly). Websockets should simply have its own DNS (e.g., so not to break any apps out there.

I think the general theory is that 3rd party app developers should be using 6667 for IRC anyway.

That’s the first I hear about that… and IMO a bad call. Not all users (from my experience) can connect to that port (firewall).

For 3rd party sites this isn’t an issue since it’s the server making the connection. For 3rd party desktop applications, this is a huge issue though.

All in all, port 80 exists and should be allowed to be used.

I believe the current plan is to leave a few servers still running IRC on 80 and 443 for legacy clients but the majority will probably transition to WebSockets in the near future.

Checking the API for a list of available servers is the suggested method of keeping up to date:

Thanks George. I’m aware of things being changed (and upcoming changes) so was and am expecting some hiccups.

Would just be really surprised if would suddenly point to a WebSocket.

I’m already using the chat_properties data, just haven’t implemented an option to switch to any of the available servers yet and for now my apps always connect to doesn’t point to websockets - it’s just a name which points to a set of hosts that can serve IRC connections. DNS itself says nothing about which ports on these hosts have which capabilities - in our case (along with most IRC servers) we officially support IRC on port 6667.

Will continue to work on port 80? As mentioned before, quite a few users are not able to connect to anything but port 80 (when using a desktop client).

When we rollout websockets to all of our web users, we’ll likely have port 80 running websockets and ports 443 (which generally doesn’t have firewall issues) and 6667 running IRC.

In the longer-term (when we release ports which use secure connections) this will change (as port 443 will likely run secure websockets). We’ll keep in mind potential firewall issues as we make these changes.

Ok, good to know. I’ve been using port 80 for desktop apps, because too many users were having issues with 6667. Port 443 might be a good alternative maybe, but I’ll have to check user feedback.

For me, switching to WebSockets just to be able to stick to port 80 is not an option, at least not in the short term.

is a version of web socket chat now ready for testing? is so what is the url?

The server that is websocket enabled is listed in the chat properties output.

Currently front end testing is a bit more random as it’s not fully rolled out yet.

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.