Re: Guidance needed on well known ports

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu>]

On Friday, March 24, 2006 08:23:20 AM -0500 "Steven M. Bellovin" 
<smb at cs.columbia.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:56:51 -0800, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Since it seems like this might be useful, I'll pull a draft together on
> > how to do this without 1078's extra connection, more like the
> > late-binding we do in datarouter, very shortly...
>
> 1078 doesn't use an extra connection; it hands off the open connection
> to the protocol handler.
>
> Your suggestion of using a TCP option instead is friendlier to
> firewalls, though.

And it uses fewer round trips.  I like this idea.


> does require a mod to TCP to allow the dest port to be unbound (e.g.,
> '0') if the option is present, and enable the return SYN-ACK to update
> the TCB on arrival.

This part, though, seems like it could be perilous.  Why not start with
a non-zero port and hand off the connection, a la tcpmux?

-- Jeff

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