Marshall Rose (mrose@nrtc-gremlin)
Thu, 15 May 86 08:07:43 -0700
The obviously problem with a "multiplexing port" is that you can no
longer tell by looking at the TCB what protocol is being spoken.
This renders programs like netstat on BSD UNIX, et. al., pretty
much worthless. If we're going to expand the port space somehow, I
vote we do it explicitly in the TCP headers, so it's part of the
information in the TCB, rather than expand the port space covertly
by exchanging the information in the TCP data.
ps: of course, this is the exact opposite of what we did in rfc973
(iso transport on top of the tcp), primarily because I thought 1)
keeping track of the numbers, if there ever were numbers, should be
separate from the tcp port space, since the protocols probably
weren't going to look anything like our good old ARM-style protocols
; and, 2), there's a good chance that we'd need more than 512 port
numbers in the next three-five years. To postpone that problem, 4K
port numbers were reserved; presumably, though I didn't think about
it, 2K of those are for "private" use.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:06 GMT