Re: TWO WEEK LAST CALL: Regularizing Port Numbers for SSL.

Oh, yeah, real sacred.  There's a port for DOOM, there's ports for
Lucasfilm, there's many ports for IBM, there's many undocumented but
allocated ports.  No offense to those companies, but DOOM?  Really!

[I wholeheartedly agree that a long term solution other than port
consumption is appropriate.]

At 01:38 PM 2/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:39:36 -0800, Christopher Allen  
><ChristopherA@consensus.com> wrote:
>> I was avoiding adding too many new ports without developer commitment to
>> support them. If we give the IANA a huge number of port requests they are
>> going to punt and say "solve the problem by using one port" which is not a
>> completely unreasonable request, but we are looking for a short term
>> solution.
>
>Even if we have developer committment, heck, ports below 1024 are sacred
and  
>a scarce resource.  We need to find a way to solve the problem by using one  
>port NOW.  Has anyone done any work on reducing this tremendous waste of  
>ports?
>
>Why can't both service live on one port?  That's what we should be working
on  
>rather than a quick and ugly fix by simply registering all those port
ranges.  
>
>
>This current schema of allocating SSL alter-egos for existing services does  
>not scale.
>
>Best regards,
>Chris
>
>--
>Christian Kuhtz <chk@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>                                                          ".com is a
mistake."
>
>
>
--------
Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>
PGP Fingerprint: BB1B6428 409129AC  076B9DE1 4C250DD8

Received on Thursday, 6 February 1997 10:55:09 UTC