Re: use of netconf to configure Unix systems

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 09:59:26AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
 
> Either the assignment range matters, in which case I believe there
> is sufficient justification to ask for well known port numbers for
> NETCONF, or the assignment range doesn't matter, and therefore all
> new static ports are registered ports.  I can live with either
> decision, but I would prefer an actual IESG decision in this matter.

I have no strong opinion. In principle, I would prefer a port < 1024
(since I am biased to Unix like systems ;-). The only thing that
scares me is that we would have to request three TCP ports, which I
find a bit costly given the fact that it is unclear whether some of
the transport mappings will see much deployment.

What about the following solution:

a) A port number < 1024 is assigned to the NETCONF/SSH transport
   mapping since this is the default mapping everybody has to support.

b) Two port numbers > 1024 are assigned to he BEEP and SOAP mapping,
   which are both optional transport mappings.

Sure, this solution is at odds with the argument for having a port <
1024 in the first place. But it keeps some economy with using special
port numbers.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

--
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/>