Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!lll-winken!rogue.llnl.gov!oberman
From: oberman@rogue.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Ports 1000-1023 reserved?
Message-ID: <1990Jul31.115309.1@rogue.llnl.gov>
Date: 31 Jul 90 18:53:09 GMT
References: <9007301547.AA19807@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 26

In article <9007301547.AA19807@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, DBARTON@IBM.COM writes:

> TCP/IP Version 2 for VM will start allocating ports at port number 1024,
> to prevent this problem with the Hewlett Packard product.  Ports
> 1000-1023 are not restricted, and I am surprised that Hewlett Packard
> does not have problems interoperating with other TCP/IP products than
> VM.
 
I beg to differ. Please check RFC-1060 in the section "UNIX PORTS".

   By convention, ports in the range 256 to 1024 are used for "Unix
   Standard" services. 

This is "by convention", but in IP-land "by convention" is what is really done.
So HP has no problem with the vast majority of implementations since the
authors knew that all addresses up to 1024 were reserved. Only those designed
in strict compliance with the specs are going to have problems. And I doubt if
any implementation has ever worked by designing to the spec.

					R. Kevin Oberman
					Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
					Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov
   					(415) 422-6955

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.