On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Mark Nelson wrote: > On 04/29/2015 12:02 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > > So, I picked 6789 way back in commit > > dc38de9b14c5386f9f446124ca6d6673eb8a1e20 because it was unused according > > to nmap-services. It's there now, in use by smc-https (whatever that is), > > and says it was registered in 2002. I guess the nmap-services file I > > looked at at the time was out of date? > > > > In any case, if we want an IANA assigned number, we'll need to change it. > > > > We should be able to make a transition reasonably painless by making > > clients try both ports when none is specified for some period. > > > > I'm assuming it's worth the effort... what do you think? > > Yes, I think it's worth it. Better now than when we are 10x bigger than > <large storage vendor> right? ;) Hmm, we could go for something < 1024 too, but that will make non-root ceph-mon's more annoying, I suspect. http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml?search=unassigned sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
