Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!nrtc-gremlin!mrose
From: mrose@nrtc-gremlin.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Port Collisions
Message-ID: <18371.516612371@nrtc-gremlin.northrop.com>
Date: Mon, 19-May-86 07:31:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: nrtc-gre.18371.516612371
Posted: Mon May 19 07:31:59 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 19-May-86 20:16:29 EDT
References: <860515115810.6.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: tcp-ip@sri-nic.ARPA
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 17
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


    I'm not going to get into an argument about how people doing
    "independent, exploratory research of completely unrelated problem
    domains" should interact with a numbers czar on call 24-hours a day.
    That's silly, right?  But wouldn't it be okay to have a tacit
    agreement between people doing development work about the port space
    being used for "independent, exploratory research of completely
    unrelated problem domains" is divided up?  (i.e., Benson's group
    gets 600-699, David's group gets 700-799, etc., etc.).

    No matter how complex you make the port space (e.g., go from 16-bit
    integers to null-terminated strings of arbitrary length), you will
    still run into collisions.  There has to be some authority somewhere
    which maintains a registry, binding on all parties, which assigns
    protocols to the port space.

/mtr