Launchpad UX Feedback Requested!

Development
1

Hi Folks,

Looking for some feedback on some specific features we’re building into the Launchpad.

In the first instance it is around a feature to allow users to set custom port range. This is going to give a bit ore flexibility to users behind routers, but still it needs to be straightforward enough for our current LP userbase to be walked through with minimal pitfalls.

We have a few different approaches to hnadling the UX of this, each with their trade-offs.

The first I’d like feedback is this:

image
image1572×782 53.2 KB

The user select the start of the port range, which is always 50 consectutive ports (the current maximum number of nodes the launchpad can start).

I can go through a couple of other approaches, but on this first: for thouse of you who have dabbled in port forwards, would this fit within your usecase? Would you hit snags with this approach when configuring your router subseqently?

Thanks in advance!

13 Likes
2

I think the range should reflect chosen node count, not a maximum. And probably only beginning of a range should be editable.

2 Likes
3

Can you describe why it should mirror the node count? What do you forsee as issues there? Lack of 50 consecutive ports available? Something else?

4

Yes. If you choose a range 12001 - 12050, then when you run 20 nodes, ports larger than 12020 are in fact free. The dialog should say “12001 - 12020”

2 Likes
5

The second approach we have looked at is as you describe… the user enters the start of the range, and then the end of the range is defined by how many nodes they start:

image
image1572×782 53.6 KB

This seems a sensible approach… but it does add in a lot more error states to handle, and some more complexity to the user flows (and potentially more trips to the router admin panel for the user)

2 Likes
6

A 50 port range isn’t a wild number to reserve though, out of say tens of thousands? Or have you hit those limitations before?

3 Likes
7

It’s not, but it’s always important for me to know without doubt exacly what’s happening in my system.

8

Perhaps better to omit the range end at all, so that no false info is given.

9

Users need to know what to configure in their router though for port forwarding… so we need to surface it somewhere.

4 Likes
10

Out of interest, what range of ports do you folks usually pick?

1 Like
11

I’ve started around 10 different machines behind all kinds of different routers and always opened 12000-12050 never had a problem. Usually only running 30 nodes max.

3 Likes
12

Been using 12001 since the beginning but have recently switched higher to 55001 and up.

Mainly based on @neo s recommendation for higher port numbers

2 Likes
13

Def recommend a default of 55000-55050. Just leave it at that. Nobody that is using Launchpad is likely to be using ports up there. And if they are, then they obv have the skillz such that they dont need Launchpad anyway.

Also the no of open ports cannot be LESS than the req’d no of nodes. Nothing stops you opening MORE ports up there but they will be unused if you only start say 40 nodes - which is no big deal.

So to KISS, let Launchpad set node-ports 55000-55050 and leave it at that. Do it in the background so one less thing to confuse newbies.

And then the router instructions are simplified - Open 55000-55050 and link that rule to your internal noderunner box IP

4 Likes
14

Yeah this is the conclusion we came to after looking a the options.

I started witb the design that the end of the range would be defined by the number of nodes you start… but then you have to deal with situations where the user starts more nodes, but hasn’t changed the range and/or then needs to be told to configure their router again…

Or other edge cases like they are at the very top of ther IPv6 range, and they try and start more, how we handle that etc. It just gets more complicated to communicate back and make sure we have all the flows covered.

1 Like
15

Whats the thinking here in being up there in the ephemeral range?

2 Likes
16

The function of Launchpad is to get non-tech users running a reasonable no of nodes from home.

So we give them a very vanilla safe (!) way of starting 50 nodes (is that too many to start with?).
If all goes well, wife and kids dont riot cos Netfix is gubbed, then they can read the docs and try something more ambitious.
Lets not worry about providing that more ambitious step in Launchpad at this stage

We need many more thousand folks running 50 nodes or less ASAP. Out of these folks a few dozen will want to poke further. Their enthusiasm is to be commended but we can handle them on Discord without delaying a WORKING Launchpad for the many.

KISS

8 Likes
17

@neo and @Southside say it’s better up here :slight_smile:

I never saw any problems down around the 12000 range but I would never have picked up on them unless it was catastrophic a node missing here or there in my setup doesn’t make much difference.

1 Like
18

Wide open spaces , highly unlikely to run into anything else needing those ports, especially with our target audience, the home user.

19

The only problem I see with a static range like that is if a user has multiple devices.

Set it up on computer A “Hey, that was easy, let me do a second setup on computer B”
OR
“I don’t want to bog down a specific computer, but I have two computers to work with”

They’re stuck because launchpad is locked into starting at X range.
I feel having the ability to specify a start range is important to being to handle users’ needs/wants.

3 Likes
20

Good point - however - out of 1000 newbies, how many will have a spare box ready to use?
Lets be generous and say 200…

I’d rather get the 800 running and not need support resources and then deal with the ambitious ones on Discord.

Your point is perfectly valid but KISS for the next critical few weeks.

7 Likes