Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: Allan.Cargille@pilot.cs.wisc.edu (Allan Cargille)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: The X.400 port in "assigned numbers"
Message-ID: <901210144955*@MHS>
Date: 10 Dec 90 20:55:21 GMT
References: <9012072220.AA05182@bel.isi.edu>
Lines: 29
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
X400-Originator: Allan.Cargille@pilot.cs.wisc.edu
Content-Identifier: 901210144955
In-Reply-To: <9012072220.AA05182@bel.isi.edu >
Priority: Urgent
X400-Received: by mta pilot.cs.wisc.edu in /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/; Relayed;
               Mon, 10 Dec 1990 14:50:20 +0000
X400-Received: by /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/; Relayed;
               Mon, 10 Dec 1990 13:49:57 +0000
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/;cargille660862197.65xnren.us]

} Harald:
}
} Hi.
}
} Using the RFC-1006 encapsulation of TP4 in TCP one should use port 102.
}
} --jon.
}
} Harry:
}
} Ok.  We will deassign ports 103 and 104.  Thanks.
}
} --jon.

I am concerned that some early implementations cannot multiplex port
102 to handle RFC1006 traffic for more than one application.
In particular, the ARGO X.400 implementation that we are using needs a
dedicated port for X.400 RFC1006 traffic.  I do not know how many
other existing implementations have this problem.  I would like to see
at least one port reserved for X.400 (103 or 104).

allan
--
Allan Cargille                Computer Sciences Department
Associate Researcher          University of Wisconsin-Madison
Fax +1 (608) 262-9777         1210 West Dayton Street
Voice +1 (608) 262-5084       Madison, WI   53706   USA
cargille@cs.wisc.edu          uwvax!cargille
X.400 C=us; ADMD= ; PRMD=xnren; O=uw-madison; OU=cs; S=cargille