nick@toro.UUCP (Nicholas Jacobs) (05/24/89)
In RFC 1010, there is a list of officially defined ports used by TCP (and by UDP wherever possible). I am writing a server process which hangs on a "well-known" port which can supply both the official ports (given a port name or number) and to which locally defined ports can be added to dynamically (thus programs can ask this process to generate new port numbers). I have 2 questions: 1) Is this service already defined (and thus I should simply mimic its behavior)? 2) Failing that, is there a port that is recommended for this service (I am planning on using IPPORT_RESERVED+1)? We are are running Excelan's TCP/IP on NCR Towers running SysV.1 and 2. These machines are running on Ethernet LANs and are not attached to the Internet in any way whatsoever... Please email me any recommendations. Thanks, Nicholas Jacobs UUCP: ...!uunet!toro!nick Internet: toro!nick@uunet.uu.net AT&T: (212) 236-3230
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/24/89)
In article <364@toro.UUCP> nick@toro.UUCP (Nicholas Jacobs) writes: >In RFC 1010, there is a list of officially defined ports used by TCP >(and by UDP wherever possible). I am writing a server process which >hangs on a "well-known" port which can supply both the official ports >(given a port name or number) and to which locally defined ports can be >added to dynamically (thus programs can ask this process to generate >new port numbers). > >I have 2 questions: > 1) Is this service already defined (and thus I should simply > mimic its behavior)? > 2) Failing that, is there a port that is recommended for this > service (I am planning on using IPPORT_RESERVED+1)? 1) yes, it's in RFC 1078 (TCPMUX). 2) i'm not sure, see 1078. one thought on 1078 as I remember it: using TCP for a simple transaction like the port server is overkill when using UDP would require a simple two packet exchange process. Has anyone actually implemented something like this or do we have to wait until BSD does it? Todd Whitesel toddpw @ romeo.caltech.edu toddpw @ caltech.bitnet toddpw @ CITDEIMO
zweig@p.cs.uiuc.edu (05/26/89)
::Written 11:17 pm May 23, 1989 by toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu:
::
::In article <364@toro.UUCP> nick@toro.UUCP (Nicholas Jacobs) writes:
::>In RFC 1010, there is a list of officially defined ports used by TCP
::>(and by UDP wherever possible). I am writing a server process which
::>hangs on a "well-known" port which can supply both the official ports
::>(given a port name or number) and to which locally defined ports can be
::>added to dynamically (thus programs can ask this process to generate
::>new port numbers).
::>
::>I have 2 questions:
::> 1) Is this service already defined (and thus I should simply
::> mimic its behavior)?
::> 2) Failing that, is there a port that is recommended for this
::> service (I am planning on using IPPORT_RESERVED+1)?
::
::1) yes, it's in RFC 1078 (TCPMUX).
::2) i'm not sure, see 1078.
::
::one thought on 1078 as I remember it: using TCP for a simple transaction like
::the port server is overkill when using UDP would require a simple two packet
::exchange process.
::
::Has anyone actually implemented something like this or do we have to wait
::until BSD does it?
::
::Todd Whitesel
::toddpw @ romeo.caltech.edu
::toddpw @ caltech.bitnet
::toddpw @ CITDEIMO
This brings up that problem that RFC1078 in almost impossible to understand
unless you already know what it does. It says "then the service begins" --
but is it still on Port 1? Or does the service implicitly set up a different
port number? Does this mean only one thing can be happening on Port 1 at any
time? Sounds like a shabby multiplexer if it only multiplexes one thing at a
time....
-Johnny Zweig
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Department of Computer Science
--------------------------------Disclaimer:------------------------------------
Rule 1: Don't believe everything you read.
Rule 2: Don't believe anything you read.
Rule 3: There is no Rule 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (05/28/89)
In article <93400022@p.cs.uiuc.edu> zweig@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >This brings up that problem that RFC1078 in almost impossible to understand >unless you already know what it does. It says "then the service begins" -- >but is it still on Port 1? Or does the service implicitly set up a different >port number? Does this mean only one thing can be happening on Port 1 at any >time? Sounds like a shabby multiplexer if it only multiplexes one thing at a >time.... That's like assuming that there can only be one TELNET session at a time because it there's only one port 23. The TCPMUX server can handle any number of connections, because they'll each come from a different remote host and/or remote port. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar