On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:44:13 -0800, "Christian Huitema" <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 1. Are well known ports archaic? If so, can we request that the > IANA > > do away with the distinction? > > I don't know whether I would use the word "archaic", but the distinction > between < 1024 and >= 1024 is certainly Unix-specific. In the Windows > operating systems, the port range 1-1023 is not special. Some Windows OS > services use low port numbers, but not all. UPNP, for example, uses > ports 1900 and 2500; the RPC applications use dynamic port numbers. A more interesting question is this: what are the odds that a user process will accidentally grab the port number before the system process gets to it? The notion of a "privileged" port number is certainly preposterous; that said, putting services in a range that ordinary applications tend not to use has its merits. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf