Re: Guidance needed on well known ports

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>]

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:41:25 -0800, "Christian Huitema"
<huitema@windows.microsoft.com> wrote:
> If there is a reserved range, then it
> is easy to start dynamic allocation outside the range.

Yes -- this is my point.  I don't care about Unix-style privileged
ports (and have never liked them anyway), but putting most services
outside the well-known dynamic range is a good idea.
> 
> Starting services quickly also helps with the "voluntary collisions"
> between system services and applications, but is not foolproof. In any
> case, it does not help with collisions between applications, e.g. two
> applications trying to use the same port. What does help there is an
> easily accessible registration system, so application developers can
> easily "do the right thing", i.e. reserve a port and avoid collisions.
> Note the emphasis on "easily accessible": if there are too many hoops to
> jump through, the developers will likely just pick a number at random.
> 
Right, though it's a delicate dancce.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb



--
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/>