On Fri Mar 7 18:07:10 2008, Max Indelicato wrote:
So my question is this, what is the proper implementation of this
standard, taking into consideration that you can't bind a socket in
any
language that I'm aware of, to a port that has already been bound by
another socket? For example, if I locally bind SERVER1's outbound
TCP
socket to 5269 and make a connection to SERVER2's inbound TCP
socket on
5269, then I'm ok. But when SERVER2, tries to then locally bind its
separate outbound socket to 5269, in an attempt to connect to
SERVER1's
inbound socket, it can't because the outbound socket is already
bound to
that port. This is a problem on both ends really - simply put, you
can't
bind two separate TCP sockets to the same port (inbound and outbound
being those two separate sockets).
Indeed... But you don't need to use 5269 for outgoing connections -
it's only used as the destination port. Your source port can be
anything, and is usually left "unbound" - as in, you let the OS do
the binding.
Otherwise no, you wouldn't be able to have two TCP connections both
with source and destination ports being 5269.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
