Martin Spott wrote:
So the only command line change would be to go from
--native=socket,in,30,,5500,udp --fdm=external
to
--native=socket,in,30,,5500,udp --fdm=null
btw, do we have an 'official' port number assignment ? Over the time I
read several suggestions by several members over the use of port 5500:
--props=socket,bi,5,localhost,5500,tcp
--nmea=socket,out,2,localhost,5500,udp
--httpd=5500
--native=socket,in,30,,5500,udp --fdm=null
[... maybe some more ...]
It would be useful at least to postulate a FlightGear assignment - it does
not have to meet RFC1340
Martin.
Actually I don't think 5500 is a good idea - it is already assigned to
someone else:
fcp-addr-srvr1 5500/tcp fcp-addr-srvr1
fcp-addr-srvr1 5500/udp fcp-addr-srvr1
# Mark Zeiss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(see http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers).
Unless and until we have an assigned number, we should use a number from
the Dynamic and/or Private Ports range: 49152 through 65535. So 55000
would be OK! Of course you can use any number you like on a private
network (not connected to the Internet, and where you know that the port
you choose is not in use by any other protocol) or when you know that
the machines sending and receiving are not going to use that other protocol.
There is actually a reasonabe chance that an assigned port number would
be granted if we requested one. My company recently got one, even
though I was expecting we wouldn't be able to justify the need for it.
However, I don't think it would be appropriate until the protocol has
settled down and been used for a while.
So may I suggest changing the suggested number to 55000 in the documents
that mention it?
- Julian
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
