Re: use of netconf to configure Unix systems

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>]

I believe that the correct, current, answer to your question is "nothing."
Netconf is clearly not a better use of those ports than a large 
number of things that have been assigned higher numbered ports.
Hence, I think Netconf should live in the same space as everyone else.
The 1024 port space was reserved based on a certain model of the 
world.  That model no longer obtains.

There is arguably even a good reason that Netconf should not be 
using, by default, a reserved port.  I can easily imagine 
experimental router implementations where the control logic (and even 
the router and router config logic) are living in user space.  They 
are not running as priviledged processes.  They could support 
Netconf, and the standard port, if that port were not in the kernel 
set.  But could not use the normal Netconf port if it was in the system space.

Using a <1024 port buys us nothing.
Not using one is more appropriate, and may even be useful.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 07:53 PM 3/17/2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Finally I do wish you would answer the question that was asked several
> times: if NETCONF is not a good use of well known ports, what is?


--
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/>