Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!ames!elroy!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: TCP Port question
Summary: RFC1078 and comments
Keywords: TCP/IP
Message-ID: <10780@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: 24 May 89 04:17:08 GMT
References: <364@toro.UUCP>
Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu
Reply-To: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Todd P. Whitesel)
Distribution: usa
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 28

In article <364@toro.UUCP> nick@toro.UUCP (Nicholas Jacobs) writes:
>In RFC 1010, there is a list of officially defined ports used by TCP
>(and by UDP wherever possible). I am writing a server process which
>hangs on a "well-known" port which can supply both the official ports
>(given a port name or number) and to which locally defined ports can be
>added to dynamically (thus programs can ask this process to generate
>new port numbers).
>
>I have 2 questions:
>	1) Is this service already defined (and thus I should simply
>	   mimic its behavior)?
>	2) Failing that, is there a port that is recommended for this
>	   service (I am planning on using IPPORT_RESERVED+1)?

1) yes, it's in RFC 1078 (TCPMUX).
2) i'm not sure, see 1078.

one thought on 1078 as I remember it: using TCP for a simple transaction like
the port server is overkill when using UDP would require a simple two packet
exchange process.

Has anyone actually implemented something like this or do we have to wait until
BSD does it?

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ romeo.caltech.edu
toddpw @ caltech.bitnet
toddpw @ CITDEIMO