--On Wednesday, 24 May, 2006 19:06 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<jhutz@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Disclaimer - I wasn't even aware of this document before
> reading this thread. However, I have now read it, so feel
> prepared to comment.
>...
> (2) As I understand it, for ports above 1024, the IANA does
> _not_ assign
> values - it just registers uses claimed by others.
> Eliminating
> well-known ports eliminates any assignment role, and
> leaves us with
> just a registry of what people have claimed. Note that
> this means
> there is no mechanism which prevents the same number from
> being
> registered by more than one registry.
This is not correct. They do, indeed, assign values. They also
apply some minimal rules in doing so. Squatting on unassigned
values, while it does happen, is considered to be in bad taste.
> Second, I believe that having a complete, accurate registry of
> port numbers is highly valuable. If there is a charge to
> register a port, and a recurring charge to maintain a
> registration, then no one will register their ports for
> private or vendor-specific use and/or minor protocols. That
> means that they won't be known to network administrators or
> network traffic analysis tools, and people looking for an
> unused port - even if they intend to register and pay for it -
> will have a difficult time finding one that is actually free.
> It also means that registrations will tend to disappear over
> time, such that valuable historical information is lost.
>...
FWIW, I tend to agree.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf