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?
----- Forwarded message # 1:
Received: from louie.udel.edu by Huey.UDEL.EDU id ac16312; 18 Oct 88 13:23 EDT
Received: from [18.104.22.168] by Louie.UDEL.EDU id aa16532; 18 Oct 88 13:22 EDT
Received: from localhost by coco4 (3.2/5.00)
id AA05998 for firstname.lastname@example.org; Tue, 18 Oct 88 10:23:17 PDT
Subject: Re: simultaneous connection
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 13 Oct 88 12:47:44 -0400.
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 88 10:23:13 PDT
From: John Hight <email@example.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.
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
----- End of forwarded messages
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:43:56 GMT