Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!SRI-NIC.ARPA!STJOHNS
From: STJOHNS@SRI-NIC.ARPA.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Port Multiplexing Details
Message-ID: <[SRI-NIC.ARPA]19-May-86.20:18:38.STJOHNS>
Date: Mon, 19-May-86 23:18:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: <[SRI-NIC.ARPA]19-May-86.20:18:38.STJOHNS>
Posted: Mon May 19 23:18:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 20-May-86 20:42:42 EDT
References: <860519202446.210131@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 24
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

Let's  try  and make this as simple as possible, at least for the
TCP side.  I haven't taken a look at the UDP stuff yet, but there
may be a totally seperate solution.

Having  yielded to the original point that a multiplexing port is
necessary, I went back and took a look at the spec  and  came  up
with the following:

1) Assign a standard TCP port for a Contact by Name server.

2)  Define  a  TCP option - Contact Name, give is some reasonable
maximum.  (32 chars?

3) The Contact Name option is only valid in a packet containing a
SYN.  (Just like the max seg size option).

4)  Multiplexing  is  still done at the TCP level, based on ports
and host addresses.  In fact, once the connection is open,  there
is no difference in the way it is handled.

Looking  at  the  implementations  I  am  familiar with (Multics,
UNIX), this shouldn't be difficult to implement at all.

Mike