I'd prefer >1024 if we expect to run non-root. On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 looked at at the time was out of date?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 -- 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
