> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:58:29AM -0700, Ned Freed wrote: > > >Out of curiosity, doesn't SCTP have a bigger port space (or its > > >moral equivalent)? If so, would that be a better option? > > > > I have in fact on several occasions proposed using SCTP as a transport for > > various email services. I did so no so much to take advantage of the larger > > port numbers, but because the multistream support SCTP provides could be > > leveraged in several interesting ways. (In fact the multiplexing might > > even lessen the need for so many connections.) > Ehem, where is this larger port number? The port numbers I see in > section 3.1 of RFC 2960 seem to be 16 bit. I haven't looked at this in several years, but my recollection is that the port number space was larger. Faultly memory, or maybe that was in some draft and dropped from the final version. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf