[Gllug] sorts of ports

[David Damerell]

On Tuesday, 4 Sep 2001, Paul Brazier wrote:
>> That's a good idea, but instead of making these unique service
>> identifiers strings, we could assign a number to each service. 'http'
>> could be '80', for instance. Ooops, port numbers again.
>I suppose when it was invented diskspace/bandwidth etc was very precious
>and human-readability wasn't an issue. Now with XML etc the trend is
>swinging the other way.

Human readability isn't really an issue for this; any decent tool
(like tcpdump or nmap) will use /etc/services or an equivalent list to
present text to humans.

Also, it's not clear how your scheme would provide an equivalent of
the convention that only root can bind to ports below 1024.

>It wouldn't allow multiple http servers to run on one machine (on
>different "ports") but would you need this? Doesn't inetd sort this out
>or something?

No. There are purposes for this.

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug