Re: [tsvwg] [port-srv-reg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-02

[Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Fernando Gont wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>>>> which will cause problems when ports in that range
>>>> are allocated and you're already running a service on it.
>>>>
>>>> It's not clean at all, and should be avoided, IMO.
>>> Is this one of those "let's ignore the facts" speeches?
>> It's "let's fix the end with the bug, rather than create a new bug to be
>> dealt with later" speech.
> 
> I'd argue that for client systems, reducing the port number space used
> for outgoing connections (i.e. ~64K vs ~15K) is more likely to introduce
> problems.

It'd be useful to consider whether there are actually 15K connections
and thus a real problem, or whether the hosts are incompletely
implementing port reuse checks that prevent a port from being used for
different IP addresses simultaneously. I.e., what's the greater impact
1/4 of the total space, or false positives due to implementation issues?

> Also, in retrospective, with the "registered ports" thing you're wasting
> most of the port number space when you will probably use... what? a
> maximum of 10 or 20 ports of those 50K ports?

And only 6,000 of those 50K are even assigned. Again, though, making the
space even 4x larger has only a 4x impact on current issues - that's not
all that much, IMO.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrcQIkACgkQE5f5cImnZruw2QCfQyiYdP7C5rKZAiSNlJUvvarO
WyAAoKfHn9CZWWV00ld9cpVpvogZGqNZ
=ajEx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----