Mark Lottor (MKL@SRI-NIC.ARPA)
Fri 16 May 86 02:16:06-PDT
Adding a port multiplexer can present some other problems:
You then have to support both the reserved well-known-sockets
and the multiplexed port in order to maintain compatability
with what is already in use. Then you would have to try
one first and if it fails try the other. This would be silly.
For example, to send mail you might first try connecting to a hosts
multiplexed port. If this failed then you would have to try a
direct connection to port 25. So by adding multiplexed ports
you would now have to program two different ways to try and
make a connection. If you try connecting to port 25
first, you either get the connection or don't, so there is no
real reason to have the multiplexer support the well-known-sockets.
I think a multiplexed port protocol should ONLY support
"unknown-sockets" and not the "well-known-sockets".
A protocol of general use would still get a reserved
port number. Any private or less useful protocols
that were rejected a port number would have to use
the port multiplexor.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:07 GMT