No responses, I'll take it there is no issue then.

Al

On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 14:33 -0700, Al Chu wrote:
> Is there a portability issue on some OS that makes this function a
> requirement?  I see no reason for it:
> 
> A) The IPMI ports are < 1023, which means they are reserved ports
> 
> B) Reserved ports shouldn't be gained via an ephemeral port (i.e. bind
> to port 0).
> 
> Unless there is some wierd OS where 'B' is true?
> 
> Al
> 
-- 
Albert Chu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
925-422-5311
Computer Scientist
High Performance Systems Division
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory



_______________________________________________
Freeipmi-devel mailing list
Freeipmi-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel

Reply via email to