On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 08:37:00AM -0700, Al Chu wrote: > 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?
bind to 0 is also not allowed for non-privileged uid's, and havnt come across an os which interprets port 0 in the way you said, avati > > Al > > > -- > Albert Chu > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 925-422-5311 > Computer Scientist > High Performance Systems Division > Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory > > > > _______________________________________________ > Freeipmi-devel mailing list > Freeipmifirstname.lastname@example.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel > _______________________________________________ Freeipmi-devel mailing list Freeipmiemail@example.com http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel