Ha! Disregard. In my eagerness to get started, I overlooked section 8.3 of the core spec.
Max Indelicato Chief Software Architect g8wave, Inc. P: 617.859.3263 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.g8wave.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Max Indelicato Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 6:50 PM To: XMPP Extension Discussion List Subject: Re: [Standards] binding to tcp for s2s communication To be clear, the below question is assuming that a TCP inbound and outbound connection is made before any transmitting of XML is sent over the wire. Am I correct in assuming this? Max Indelicato Chief Software Architect g8wave, Inc. P: 617.859.3263 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.g8wave.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Max Indelicato Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 6:41 PM To: XMPP Extension Discussion List Subject: Re: [Standards] binding to tcp for s2s communication Along these same lines, there seems to be no way to have multiple xmpp servers on one machine. Since we don't know what port the return inbound TCP connection will be on, we can't associate it with the initial outbound TCP connection unless we do so by IP which essentially makes multiple xmpp servers on one system impossible, no? Max -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Max Indelicato Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 2:34 PM To: XMPP Extension Discussion List Subject: Re: [Standards] binding to tcp for s2s communication 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
