Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!caip!lll-crg!styx!xx.lcs.mit.edu!JNC
From: JNC@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU ("J. Noel Chiappa")
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Port Collisions
Message-ID: <12206734278.69.JNC@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 14-May-86 19:54:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: XX.12206734278.69.JNC
Posted: Wed May 14 19:54:03 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 16-May-86 03:57:38 EDT
References: <860514110721.9.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Sender: daemon@styx.UUCP
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 13
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


	Right. What happens if you pick a name for your private
protocol that happens to be exactly the same as the name someone else
picked for their private protocol? You are merely using strings
instead of numbers; the same problems can happen. The set of possible
identifiers is still pretty small, if people use descriptive english
words for services.
	Now, if you preface all your private services with some
personal string, e.g. 'SYMBOLICS-', as in 'SYMBOLICS-NEW-FILE' then
maybe you have a valid point.

	Noel
-------