RE: Port numbers and IPv6 (was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy-00.txt)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Port numbers and IPv6 (was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy-00.txt)





On Friday, July 15, 2005 11:48:28 AM -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com> wrote:

It seems to me that the underlying problem here is that fixed port
numbers is not really the right solution to the protocol identification
problem.

When this was first proposed the number of machines on the Internet was
small and there was no DNS, only the host file.

The port number allocation scheme is really trying to do something that
should be done by the naming infrastructure. This is what SRV is for.
With SRV there is no longer any need for new protocol port assignments.
Protocol designers should be told to apply for an SRV prefix instead.

Agree, for the most part. Fixed port numbers do have some operational advantages, though...


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.