Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!styx!xx.lcs.mit.edu!SRA From: SRA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Rob Austein) Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Port Collisions Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14-May-86 18:23:00 EDT Article-I.D.: XX.SRA.12206717761.BABYL Posted: Wed May 14 18:23:00 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 16-May-86 03:51:26 EDT References: Sender: daemon@styx.UUCP Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 10 Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa The collision problem with protocol names is not as severe as the with (small) protocol numbers. People implementing private applications tend to use ports in the low 500s (or working down from 1024), so there is a fair chance that there will eventually be conflicts. Whereas I doubt that Symbolics would have much trouble testing a new service named "SYMBOLICS-PRIVATE-PROTOCOL-XYZ-PRIME". When a protocol becomes well enough known and widely enough used that it needs a short snappy name, -then- you go talk to the Socket Czar. --Rob