--On Tuesday, July 28, 2009 01:31:59 PM +0200 Hartmut Reuter
<[email protected]> wrote:
A request to IANA would result in getting 7016 and 7017 so far as I can
tell. (Or something else if you wanted something else, but those seem
like the most reasonable choices.) You can generally ask IANA for the
port numbers that you want.
I think it would be better to register new port numbers unless there's a
substantial backward-compatibility benefit for existing installations to
reusing the current port numbers. I don't have a good feel of the
combined current RxOSD and MR-AFS installation base, though.
Port numbers are an interesting space. It's desirable not to have
conflicts, and if you ask IANA to assign a port, they will assign a
non-conflicting one. However, IANA does not "control" the port space above
1024; it "registers uses of these ports as a convenience to the community".
If you report an existing use, IANA can and will document it, even where it
conflicts with another assignment. That said, I agree that for new uses we
should be requesting that IANA assign unused port numbers.
I don't know whether the rx-protocol would allow us to build locally
rxosds which listen on both ports. Any hints in this direction would be
very appreciated.
Yes, of course it does. There's nothing in either the protocol or the IBM
Rx implementation which prevents listening on multiple ports. Just call
rx_NewService more than once.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
