Re: Guidance needed on well known ports

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The whole idea of fixed ports is broken.

The idea that there are only 1024 or even 65535 Internet applications is
broken.

agree with you so far.

The Internet has a signalling layer, the DNS. Applications should use it.

strongly disagree. DNS is a huge mess. It is slow and unreliable. In practice it is often inconsistent both from one query location to another and with reality.

only the host knows which application is listening on which port. if there is going to be a layer of indirection between service name and service selector, it's extremely bad design to put that layer of indirection external to the host that's providing the service. (now if you want to argue that an architecture really needs to support clusters of hosts all providing the same service, I'd agree, but DNS is still not a good way to do this.)

The SRV record provides an infinitely extensible mechanism for advertising
ports.

yes, and is not backward compatible with most applications. also, for some reason, few new applications want to use it.

Fixed ports do not work behind NAT.

irrelevant. lots of things do not work behind NAT. NATs are inherently broken and cannot be fixed. they are an architectural dead end.



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]