We don't need reserved port numbers with IANA for that. As I said before, any number is fine if the implementation can remember which one it had last.
We can add the API to IoTivity for the implementation to provide a hint on which port number to use. This assumes that the API can store the port number it last had. As a hint, if the port number isn't available, the implementation will just choose another. Em ter?a-feira, 19 de abril de 2016, ?s 02:54:42 PDT, ??? escreveu: > Hi Thiago, > I assume DHCP will work most of cases currently. > This proposal does not intend to cover every case but just maximize the hit > ratio. BR Uze Choi > > > ---?? ???--- > ??? : Thiago Macieira/thiago.macieira at intel.com > ???? : 2016/04/19 11:44 (GMT+09:00) > ?? : Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment > > Hi Uze > > I don't see how reserving port numbers will help us in that scenario. > > If a device is able to keep its IP address and port number, then we don't > need reserved port numbers: any number is fine. If a device isn't able to > keep the address or the port number, then rediscovery is necessary and any > port number is also fine. > > I'll also claim that having a finite range is harmful because it limits us > to a certain number of instances running on a given IP address. > > Moreover, please note that IPv6 with privacy extensions enabled, it's very > likely that the device's IP address will change after a reboot (it's > possible to retain the information and resume using a random IP if it's > still valid after a reboot, but it's not required. Linux doesn't implement > that, for example). With IPv4, it's even worse since the decision is taken > out of the device's hands completely and relies on the DHCP server > provisioning with the same address. > > Em ter?a-feira, 19 de abril de 2016, ?s 02:06:40 PDT, ??? escreveu: > > Currently IoTivity use random number, but this logic causes issue from > > client application , which eventually requires finding the server device > > again when target reboot. As far as I remember Thiago also understood this > > requirement before. Discussion was not for undiscoverable service. > > > > > > ---?? ???--- > > ??? : Thiago Macieira/thiago.macieira at intel.com > > ???? : 2016/04/19 00:38 (GMT+09:00) > > ?? : Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment > > > > IoTivity decided to use random port numbers and there has been no > > discussion to change that. The port number is assigned by the OS from any > > of the non- privileged unused port numbers at the time the application > > starts. > > > > We had an inconclusive discussion about port number for services that > > aren't discoverable, but instead are well-known, like cloud services. > > That discussion didn't finish, so there are no conclusions yet. > > > > But for now, we don't need assigned port numbers. > > > > Em segunda-feira, 18 de abril de 2016, ?s 16:12:27 PDT, ???(Uze Choi) > > > > escreveu: > > > Hi Ravi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I got it, this could be IoTivity specific issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > During reboot the device. most of case, IP will be same in the local > > > network. > > > > > > For the same port, there are two approaches. > > > > > > > > > > > > One, is to store the previously assigned port. > > > > > > The other is to use registered port. > > > > > > > > > > > > IoTivity have decided to use the registered port for several reasons. > > > (second option) > > > > > > In this case I?m not sure to define the port name with ocf naming. > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] > > > On > > > Behalf Of Subramaniam, Ravi Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:38 PM > > > To: uzchoi at samsung.com; 'Michael Koster'; 'Aja Murray'; > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cftg at openconnectivity.org Subject: > > > RE: > > > [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Uze, > > > > > > > > > > > > I recognize that each stack for multiple instances may require an > > > individual port (each instance does not always need to have individual > > > port but let?s assume they do). I don?t understand why these need to be > > > registered ports. Also what happens in a situation where there are more > > > than the 5 instances (wouldn?t we have issues because we would have run > > > out of reserved ports?) > > > > > > > > > > > > From what I can understand from reading the thread is that > > > > > > > > > > > > a) There are multiple stacks on a device ? each stack has its own IP > > > address and port. > > > > > > b) The URIs are tied to the IP address/port. > > > > > > c) So when the stack reboots and gets a new IP address, the URI that the > > > Client has does not work because the client has the URI associated with > > > the > > > older IP address. > > > > > > d) So the Client has to do resource discovery again and this causes all > > > the OIC Devices to respond and Client has to process all the responses > > > to > > > get the new URIs for this Client. > > > > > > > > > > > > Did I understand the issue correctly? If this is the objective then > > > there > > > may be other ways to solve this ?same objective?. If I have > > > misunderstood, > > > could you try explaining again? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ravi > > > > > > > > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] > > > On > > > Behalf Of ???(Uze Choi) Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 11:17 PM > > > To: Subramaniam, Ravi <ravi.subramaniam at intel.com>; 'Michael Koster' > > > <michael.koster at smartthings.com>; 'Aja Murray' <amurray at > > > vtmgroup.com>; > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cftg at openconnectivity.org Subject: > > > RE: > > > [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ravi > > > > > > Could you clarify your declaration of ?same objective?? > > > > > > This is proposed for multiple IoTivity instance(stack)s in a single > > > device. > > > Each stack needs to assign individual port. > > > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] > > > On > > > Behalf Of Subramaniam, Ravi Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:08 PM > > > To: uzchoi at samsung.com; 'Michael Koster'; 'Aja Murray'; > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cftg at openconnectivity.org Cc: > > > '???'; > > > '??'; > > > '????'; '???'; '???'; '???'; '???'; rami.jung at samsung.com Subject: RE: > > > [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Uze, > > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn?t we explore other ways of achieving the same objective? I may > > > need > > > to understand the details better .. but this multiple reserved ports use > > > seems rather heavy. > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of using only fixed Device ID in the URI as in the OIC URI and > > > resolving to endpoints in the transport layer was meant to solve this > > > very > > > problem (multiple OIC Devices or stack instances on a single platform). > > > In > > > addition, for the case where there are multiple OIC Device from a single > > > IP/port, the device ID in the URI is used to select the right OIC > > > Device. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ravi > > > > > > > > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] > > > On > > > Behalf Of ???(Uze Choi) Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:46 PM > > > To: 'Michael Koster' <michael.koster at smartthings.com>; 'Aja Murray' > > > <amurray at vtmgroup.com>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org Cc: '???' <jinchoe at samsung.com>; '??' > > > <ashok.channa at samsung.com>; '????' <markus.jung at samsung.com>; '???' > > > <junghyun.oh at samsung.com>; '???' <jjack.lee at samsung.com>; '???' > > > <soohong.park at samsung.com>; '???' <jinguk.jeong at samsung.com>; > > > rami.jung at samsung.com Subject: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number > > > Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me extend the discussion channel into Core TG and IoTivity. This > > > sounds > > > related with specification also. > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > I understand why we separate the port for secure and non-secure channel. > > > > > > However, we need to avoid the consecutive port number from non-secure > > > port > > > to secure port as follows. > > > > > > From IoTivity start, stack will internally assign the port number by +1 > > > increasing if port is already occupied. > > > > > > So that port 4380 is already occupied in the non-secure mode, then stack > > > will assign the port 4381 which will cause conflict with port ?4381 UDP > > > - > > > ocf-coaps-1? > > > > > > Please update the final port proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal > > > > > > port 4380 UDP - ocf-coap-1 > > > > > > port 4380 TCP - ocf-coap-1 > > > > > > port 4381 UDP - ocf-coap-2 > > > > > > port 4381 TCP - ocf-coap-2 > > > > > > > > > > > > port 7380 UDP - ocf-coaps-1 (7380 is arbitrary number, please assign > > > appropriate one.) > > > > > > port 7380 TCP - ocf-coaps-1 > > > > > > port 7381 UDP - ocf-coaps-2 > > > > > > port 7381 TCP - ocf-coaps-2 > > > > > > (more..port). > > > > > > > > > > > > ?We may need to justify why we need so many ports.? > > > > > > ? Should we describe why this is required? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ashok, > > > > > > I?ll create on the issue on Jira once port proposal is updated from > > > Michael. > > > > > > Please handle it. > > > > > > From the CA stack please check whether it is possible to assign the port > > > incrementally with separation between secure port and non-secure port. > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > > > > > From: Michael Koster [mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 7:50 AM > > > To: Aja Murray > > > Cc: ???; ??; ????; ???; ???; ???; ???; uzchoi at samsung.com > > > Subject: Re: Introducing Uze Choi - IANA Port Number Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > There are no legal obligations and there is no cost. We should get > > > consensus on what we want to do, so it would be great if OSWG and SWG > > > agree on the registration. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess my question is if we really need 5 ports for the same service. > > > IESG > > > makes it clear that IP endpoints are expected to multiplex users of a > > > service on a port. I understand we want multiple service *instances* and > > > each to have it's own port. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would think we would allocate one non-secure port for testing but > > > mostly > > > would need secure ports. I would propose to reserve one port each TCP > > > and > > > UDP for non-secure coap, and the other ports for secure coaps on both > > > UDP > > > and TCP. By doing this we are actually requesting up to 10 ports and > > > submitting 10 forms. We may need to justify why we need so many ports. > > > > > > > > > > > > So specifically: > > > > > > > > > > > > port 4380 UDP - ocf-coap > > > > > > port 4380 TCP - ocf-coap > > > > > > port 4381 UDP - ocf-coaps-1 > > > > > > port 4381 TCP - ocf-coaps-1 > > > > > > port 4382 UDP - ocf-coaps-2 > > > > > > port 4382 TCP - ocf-coaps-2 > > > > > > (and of we need more) > > > > > > port 4383 UDP - ocf-coaps-3 > > > > > > port 4383 TCP - ocf-coaps-3 > > > > > > port 4384 UDP - ocf-coaps-4 > > > > > > port 4384 TCP - ocf-coaps-4 > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this what is intended? Do we need to make a request to review this? > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Aja Murray <amurray at vtmgroup.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > > > > > I would still like to know if there is any cost or legal implications > > > for > > > reserving these port numbers, and if we need OSWG and/or SWG approval > > > before deciding on them. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the time comes, here is the address information you requested for > > > OCF: > > > > > > Mailing Address: 3855 SW 153rd Drive, Beaverton, OR 97003, USA > > > > > > Email: <mailto:admin at openinterconnect.org> admin at > > > openinterconnect.org > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Aja > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Michael Koster [ <mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com> > > > mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com] Sent: Saturday, February 27, > > > 2016 > > > 5:25 PM > > > To: <mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com> uzchoi at samsung.com > > > Cc: ??? < <mailto:jinchoe at samsung.com> jinchoe at samsung.com>; ?? < > > > <mailto:ashok.channa at samsung.com> ashok.channa at samsung.com>; ???? < > > > <mailto:markus.jung at samsung.com> markus.jung at samsung.com>; ??? < > > > <mailto:junghyun.oh at samsung.com> junghyun.oh at samsung.com>; ??? < > > > <mailto:jjack.lee at samsung.com> jjack.lee at samsung.com>; Aja Murray < > > > <mailto:amurray at vtmgroup.com> amurray at vtmgroup.com>; ??? < > > > <mailto:soohong.park at samsung.com> soohong.park at samsung.com>; ??? < > > > <mailto:jinguk.jeong at samsung.com> jinguk.jeong at samsung.com> > > > Subject: Re: > > > Introducing Uze Choi - IANA Port Number Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, I have a couple of questions before I fill out the requests. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can make the OCF organization the assignee, and I can be the contact. > > > I > > > just need an address and email for OCF. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are no contiguous blocks of unassigned port numbers below > > > 4380-4388. > > > Does it matter what the port numbers are? > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, IANA won't assign a block of ports, each port needs to have a > > > service > > > name. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why 5 ports? How should we construct the service names? I assume they > > > are > > > instances of the same OCF CoAP service, so is it simply > > > ocf-coap-instance-1, ocf-coap-instance-2, etc? > > > > > > > > > > > > Are multiple devices distinguished by the device ID? If the URIs are > > > discinct between devices, do we need more than one port? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ports are now assigned for use by one or more transport protocols. Will > > > we > > > need to assign TCP use of these ports as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we need non-secure ports in this new range? > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:26 PM, ??? < <mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com> > > > uzchoi at samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it standard stuff or open source stuff otherwise common stuff? > > > > > > Daniel and Jin any opinion? > > > > > > BR Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > > > ---?? ???--- > > > ??? : Michael <mailto:Koster/michael.koster at smartthings.com> > > > Koster/michael.koster at smartthings.com ???? : 2016/02/24 22:57 > > > (GMT+09:00) > > > ?? : Re: Introducing Uze Choi > > > > > > We will require an assignee and a contact for these. I can be the > > > contact, > > > to answer questions from IANA and track the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the assignee should probably be a persistent administrative > > > role > > > at OCF. > > > > > > > > > > > > Aja, who should be the OCF assignee when we register identifiers like > > > port > > > numbers and content formats with bodies like IANA and IETF? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:39 AM, Michael Koster < > > > <mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com> michael.koster at > > > smartthings.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Uze, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was checking into some procedural questions. It will require a > > > separate application for each port and there is a review process. I will > > > start the process today. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 2:07 AM, ??????(Uze Choi) < > > > <mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com> > > > uzchoi at samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > We should finalize the code by this week for this upcoming IoTivity > > > release. Could you check it ASAP if possible? > > > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > > > > > From: ???(Uze Choi) [ <mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com> > > > mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:50 PM > > > To: ' <mailto:jinchoe at samsung.com> jinchoe at samsung.com'; ' > > > <mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com> michael.koster at > > > smartthings.com' > > > Cc: > > > ASHOKBABU CHANNA ( <mailto:ashok.channa at samsung.com> > > > ashok.channa at samsung.com); <mailto:markus.jung at samsung.com> > > > markus.jung at samsung.com; ??? ( <mailto:junghyun.oh at samsung.com> > > > junghyun.oh at samsung.com); ???( <mailto:jjack.lee at samsung.com> > > > jjack.lee at samsung.com) Subject: RE: Introducing Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > As Jin explained, I need to register the port region for UDP unicast > > > port > > > for OIC(IoTivity) Server as follows. > > > > > > There are some requirement for port assignment for OIC communication to > > > IANA. > > > > > > As a UDP multicast socket, IoTivity uses Port 5683 which is CoAP default > > > port registered in IANA, > > > > > > and for unicast socket, OIC stack(IoTivity) randomly assign the port > > > from > > > the system currently. > > > > > > Sometime, single device can launch multiple OIC instances which requires > > > multiple unicast sockets assignment. (multicast socket is shared > > > commonly) > > > > > > However, this random port assignment policy makes the OIC client > > > re-discover whenever OIC server restart, which is very cumbersome task. > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose the default UDP unicast port for OIC for example 3333~3337, > > > OIC > > > server assign the port from 3333 always. > > > > > > I heard that you are the person to know how to register the port into > > > IANA > > > and understand the related context. > > > > > > Could you help me for this task? > > > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > > > > > From: ??? [ <mailto:jinchoe at samsung.com> mailto:jinchoe at samsung.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 7:45 PM > > > To: ???; <mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com> > > > michael.koster at smartthings.com Subject: Introducing Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me introduce my colleague Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > > > Uze Choi > > > > > > <mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com> uzchoi at samsung.com > > > > > > > > > > > > who belongs to SWG (Software Center) & > > > > > > is a (?THE) core member of Samsung IoTivity activity. > > > > > > > > > > > > He contacted me with an issue > > > > > > & I recommended to contact you in turn. > > > > > > > > > > > > In short he has in mind > > > > > > allocating certain UDP port numbers (maybe 5) > > > > > > for exclusive CoAP or OIC usage > > > > > > because of the following. > > > > > > > > > > > > One physical platform may have multiple (logical) OIC devices > > > > > > (i.e. IoTivity instance), then for unicast CoAP message, > > > > > > a way for URI to differentiate each instance is required. > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now IoTivity uses different port number for different instance > > > > > > but due to dynamic nature of port number assignment, > > > > > > upon rebooting, sender may forget the receiver's port number > > > > > > & have to find it again. > > > > > > > > > > > > It would help to assign a certain block of UPD port number for such > > > usage. > > > > > > We may ask IANA to allocate 5 UPD port numbers exclusively for CoAP or > > > OIC > > > usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > I recommended Uze Choi to ask you, Samsung IETF expert, > > > > > > whether the approach is feasible & > > > > > > if so, how to proceed in IETF & IANA. > > > > > > > > > > > > He will send you a mail with more detail. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for your kind consideration. > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > JinHyeock > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <image001.jpg> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <~WRD174.jpg> > > > > -- > > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
