Perfect, that's what I was hoping. I guess I thought that since it wasn't specified, that there might have been further clarification in another document.
Thanks for the help! Max -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Cridland Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 1:12 PM To: XMPP Extension Discussion List Subject: Re: [Standards] binding to tcp for s2s communication 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
