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:
...
>...Which means that the more ports you allocate, the fewer ports
> you are assured you can use for the ephemeral ports without the
> security implications described in Section 10.2 of the CPNI document.

The ephemeral port range is not affected by allocations in the
non-ephemeral range. The issue above would occur only if the current
non-ephemeral range were exhausted and we moved the boundary between the
two to allow for more allocations.

As Lars noted, we're in no danger of running out of ports. I presented a
summary in TSVWG in IETF 73. We've been linear in allocations/year
(around 400) from 2001 through 2008 (when I made that chart). At that
rate, we have at least 85 years to go...

49152 - 1024 (omit all the system ports) - 5500 (remove allocations
through 2008, rounded up a hundred) / 500/yr (20% more than we have been
for the last 8) = 85 years.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkrbvTUACgkQE5f5cImnZrsWrQCfSWsKu3btten8foipbi500zk1
YmIAnjPyxzrTFnZMFesti5GCJ8Pqn5rd
=cEGy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----