Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!caip!lll-crg!styx!nrtc-gremlin.arpa!mrose
From: mrose@NRTC-GREMLIN.ARPA (Marshall Rose)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Port Collisions
Message-ID: <12950.516501992@nrtc-gremlin.northrop.com>
Date: Thu, 15-May-86 01:29:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: nrtc-gre.12950.516501992
Posted: Thu May 15 01:29:57 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 16-May-86 03:58:55 EDT
References: <860514143607.6.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Sender: daemon@styx.UUCP
Reply-To: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 26
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


    If your argument is:  

	 "having a port space of 512 distinct addresses is too small" 

    then I doubt anyone dis-agrees in principle.  On the other hand, if
    your argument is:  

	 "Benson and I, working on the floor for the same company,
	  collided, so the port space is too small"

    Then your argument points more to a possible (mis)management problem
    in your company than a port scarcity problem!  

    Let's face it, 512 distinct addresses for ports probably is too
    small for the totality of applications that can/could use TCP.  I
    don't think it's too small any given group of co-operating sites
    using TCP, though I could be convinced otherwise.  

    Personally, I like the Berkeley method since you can just define
    some numbers to meet your needs.  I'm not so keen on using strings
    or datastructures as port identifiers, though I'm sure, when ISO
    gets around to defining the port space for TS-users, they'll be sure
    to add an option for regular expressions, mandelbrots, etc.  (-:

/mtr