RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]

["Rob Enns" <rpe@juniper.net>]

> The current  practice with CLI, HTML, and SMI based network management
> protocols is to use privileged port numbers.  Why is NETCONF 
> different?

My 2 cents: it's different because it's new, and the world has
changed since the time SNMP, TELNET, and SSH ports were assigned. 
With cheap powerful networked computers available to anyone (vs. the
days 
when multiuser networked machines were run by druids and locked 
in a machine room) the distinction between <1024 and >1024 is 
gone. Anyone can stick a computer on a network and open a port <1024.

So why burn a scarce port number when a non-scarce one is just as good?

(or, I agree with Ira)

Rob

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>