Marshall Rose (mrose@nrtc-gremlin)
Wed, 14 May 86 17:46:32 -0700
If your argument is:
"having a port space of 512 distinct addresses is too small"
then I doubt anyone dis-agrees in principle. On the other hand, if
your argument is:
"Benson and I, working on the floor for the same company,
collided, so the port space is too small"
Then your argument points more to a possible (mis)management problem
in your company than a port scarcity problem!
Let's face it, 512 distinct addresses for ports probably is too
small for the totality of applications that can/could use TCP. I
don't think it's too small any given group of co-operating sites
using TCP, though I could be convinced otherwise.
Personally, I like the Berkeley method since you can just define
some numbers to meet your needs. I'm not so keen on using strings
or datastructures as port identifiers, though I'm sure, when ISO
gets around to defining the port space for TS-users, they'll be sure
to add an option for regular expressions, mandelbrots, etc. (-:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:06 GMT