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
> Freeipmi-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel
> 


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

Reply via email to