[John Hight: Re: simultaneous connection]


Mills@UDEL.EDU
Tue, 18 Oct 88 15:30:30 EDT


How quickly we forget. John is absolutely correct and I have a bum chip
in my memory socket. RFC-759, which describes MPM, does not mention the
source port number, but does specify 45 as the destination port number.
I presume the distinction is mentioned in the SRI report that we eventually
adopted for the tests and bakeoffs (heck, I even left fossilized
implementations of MMM on the fuzzballs). Want I should send you an MMM
message for old time's sake?

Dave sends

----- Forwarded message # 1:

Received: from louie.udel.edu by Huey.UDEL.EDU id ac16312; 18 Oct 88 13:23 EDT
Received: from [128.18.4.204] by Louie.UDEL.EDU id aa16532; 18 Oct 88 13:22 EDT
Received: from localhost by coco4 (3.2/5.00)
                   id AA05998 for mills@louie.udel.edu; Tue, 18 Oct 88 10:23:17 PDT
Message-Id: <8810181723.AA05998@coco4>
To: Mills@louie.udel.edu
Subject: Re: simultaneous connection
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 13 Oct 88 12:47:44 -0400.
             <8810131247.aa23878@Huey.UDEL.EDU>
Return-Receipt-To: hight@tsca.istc.sri.com
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 88 10:23:13 PDT
From: John Hight <hight@tsca.istc.sri.com>

>The only scenario I know in the Internet archeology is the relic
>Multimedia Message Protocol (MPM), in which the message agents used
>the same TCP port number for both the source and destination ports.

Dave,

Not that it's very important, but I believe you are mistaken here. MPM
used different specific port numbers for both the source and
destination ports (45 and 46 to be precise). And it's Message
Processing Module.

John Hight
SRI International

----- End of forwarded messages



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:43:56 GMT