On 12/11/2004, at 11:01 AM, David J. Hughes wrote: >> "You cannot base an alias port?s health on the health of a UDP port >> or a port that is not well-known to the ServerIron." > > Wow! I've seen some "odd" things on the SI's but that one just about > takes the cake. Logic, useability, and firmware development > strategies are obviously mutually exclusive :)
It's not every day I reply to my own posts ;-) But, on this "well known tcp port" business, I just remembered that when we did our initial testing of using master-port configuration we did it using dummy SMTP servers running on port 26 - and it worked just fine. Now, TCP 26 doesn't appear to be too well known to me. That was on a pair of SI-100's running WSR08100m. Might be worth actually trying it before discarding the idea. David ...
