On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 09:05:45AM +0800, Yanjun Zhu wrote: > > > On 2018/5/12 22:55, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:24:03AM -0400, Tom Talpey wrote: > > > On 5/12/2018 9:54 AM, Zhu Yanjun wrote: > > > > When udp port 4791 is blocked, the udp port 4891 is used and vice versa. > > > Port 4891 is currently unassigned in the IANA registry. Do you intend > > > to request this? Strongly suggest that this not merge without such a > > > standard. > > > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.txt > > > > > > > > The whole idea looks to me like a hack, what will we do once the second > > port blocked too? Will we introduce option to add more ports? > The second port is a backup. When the first port 4791 is blocked, the port > 4891 will be used. At the same time, > some cleanup work will be done to make udp port 4791 work again. When 4891 > is blocked, 4791 is used again. > > It is like failover in bonding.:-) Right, so why don't you use bonding for that? Thanks > > Zhu Yanjun > > > > Thanks >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
