Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!excelan!donp
From: donp@na.excelan.com (don provan)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Ports 1000-1023 reserved?
Message-ID: <1628@excelan.COM>
Date: 31 Jul 90 19:51:51 GMT
References: <9007301547.AA19807@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1990Jul31.115309.1@rogue.llnl.gov>
Sender: news@excelan.COM
Reply-To: donp@novell.com (don provan)
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, California
Lines: 27

In article <1990Jul31.115309.1@rogue.llnl.gov> oberman@rogue.llnl.gov writes:
>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.
> 
>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. 

OK, this discussion has gotten out of hand and i'm afraid some
innocent novice it going to believe some of this misinformation.

While it is true that ports lower than 1024 are reserved on many
systems, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the HP bug that's being
discussed here.  The port given in the FTP PORT command is a *remote*
port.  There's no justification at all for HP checking this port for
any range of any type for any reason.  It should just use the port
given.  I don't even understand what prompted some misguided soul to
add the extra, unnecessary code needed to make this check.

I applaud the IBM developers for making this simple change to
accommodate the HP implementation, but i want everyone to understand
that the HP implementation is, in fact, broken.
							don provan
							donp@novell.com