On May 11 2007 19:14, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>David Miller wrote:
>>
>> All ports above and including 1024 are non-privileged and available to
>> anyone.
>>
>> Applications which have some requirements in this area need to work
>> those things out themselves.
>
>However, there are a large number
On May 11 2007 19:14, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
David Miller wrote:
All ports above and including 1024 are non-privileged and available to
anyone.
Applications which have some requirements in this area need to work
those things out themselves.
However, there are a large number of
> > I think the IANA range is considered too small in most cases; I
> > suspect there is also a feeling that "there be dragons" near the very
> > top.
>
> Ok, thanks for the explanation. Sounds like we're using high port
> numbers in the "spirit" of the IANA recommendation, without using
> their
On Sat, 12 May 2007 12:12:38 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Glines wrote:
> >
> > Well, in that case, is there anything wrong with just using the
> > range IANA recommends, in all cases?
> >
>
> I think the IANA range is considered too small in most cases; I
> suspect
> Well, in that case, is there anything wrong with just using the
> range IANA recommends, in all cases?
>
> Please consider this patch instead of my previous one.
Please send this patch to the netdev list and CC the relevant networking
maintainer.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
Mark Glines wrote:
>
> Well, in that case, is there anything wrong with just using the
> range IANA recommends, in all cases?
>
I think the IANA range is considered too small in most cases; I suspect
there is also a feeling that "there be dragons" near the very top.
-hpa
-
To
On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:12:15 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Following the principle of least astonishment, I think it seems
> > better to use high, out-of-the-way port numbers regardless of how
> > much RAM the system has. So, the following patch changes this
> > behavior
On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:12:15 -0700
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following the principle of least astonishment, I think it seems
better to use high, out-of-the-way port numbers regardless of how
much RAM the system has. So, the following patch changes this
behavior slightly. The
Mark Glines wrote:
Well, in that case, is there anything wrong with just using the
range IANA recommends, in all cases?
I think the IANA range is considered too small in most cases; I suspect
there is also a feeling that there be dragons near the very top.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe
Well, in that case, is there anything wrong with just using the
range IANA recommends, in all cases?
Please consider this patch instead of my previous one.
Please send this patch to the netdev list and CC the relevant networking
maintainer.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Sat, 12 May 2007 12:12:38 -0700
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Glines wrote:
Well, in that case, is there anything wrong with just using the
range IANA recommends, in all cases?
I think the IANA range is considered too small in most cases; I
suspect there is also a
I think the IANA range is considered too small in most cases; I
suspect there is also a feeling that there be dragons near the very
top.
Ok, thanks for the explanation. Sounds like we're using high port
numbers in the spirit of the IANA recommendation, without using
their actual
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> However, there are a large number of applications which have registered
> ports in this range.
And some application who request random listening ports actually query the
/etc/services file to ensure it is a "unnamed" port.
Gruss
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe
David Miller wrote:
>
> All ports above and including 1024 are non-privileged and available to
> anyone.
>
> Applications which have some requirements in this area need to work
> those things out themselves.
However, there are a large number of applications which have registered
ports in this
Mark Glines wrote:
>
> By a one-in-a-million coincidence, this machine has a default port
> range starting with 2048, and this breaks things for me. I'm trying to
> run both klive and nfs on this box, but klive starts first (probably
> because of the filename sort order), and claims UDP port
On Sat, 12 May 2007 00:06:45 UTC
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All ports above and including 1024 are non-privileged and available to
> anyone.
>
> Applications which have some requirements in this area need to work
> those things out themselves.
Hi David,
I agree completely. My
From: Mark Glines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:01:35 -0700
> Following the principle of least astonishment, I think it seems better
> to use high, out-of-the-way port numbers regardless of how much RAM the
> system has. So, the following patch changes this behavior slightly.
>
On a powerpc machine (kurobox) I have here with 128M of RAM, the default
value of /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range is:
20484999
This setting affects the port assigned to an application by default
when the application doesn't specify a port to use, like, for instance,
an outgoing
On a powerpc machine (kurobox) I have here with 128M of RAM, the default
value of /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range is:
20484999
This setting affects the port assigned to an application by default
when the application doesn't specify a port to use, like, for instance,
an outgoing
From: Mark Glines [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:01:35 -0700
Following the principle of least astonishment, I think it seems better
to use high, out-of-the-way port numbers regardless of how much RAM the
system has. So, the following patch changes this behavior slightly.
The
On Sat, 12 May 2007 00:06:45 UTC
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All ports above and including 1024 are non-privileged and available to
anyone.
Applications which have some requirements in this area need to work
those things out themselves.
Hi David,
I agree completely. My issue is
Mark Glines wrote:
By a one-in-a-million coincidence, this machine has a default port
range starting with 2048, and this breaks things for me. I'm trying to
run both klive and nfs on this box, but klive starts first (probably
because of the filename sort order), and claims UDP port 2049 for
David Miller wrote:
All ports above and including 1024 are non-privileged and available to
anyone.
Applications which have some requirements in this area need to work
those things out themselves.
However, there are a large number of applications which have registered
ports in this range.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
However, there are a large number of applications which have registered
ports in this range.
And some application who request random listening ports actually query the
/etc/services file to ensure it is a unnamed port.
Gruss
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe from
24 matches
Mail list logo
