<HEAD><TITLE>discuss@charon: [278] in "Coldmud discussion meeting"</TITLE>
<H1>[278] in Coldmud discussion meeting</H1></HEAD>
<A HREF="/"><IMG SRC="/i-d.gif" ALT="root"></A>
<A HREF="?278"><IMG SRC="/i-back.gif" ALT="meeting"></A>
<A HREF="/help.html"><IMG SRC="/i-help.gif" ALT="help"></A>
<A HREF="1"><IMG SRC="/i-first.gif" ALT="first"></A>
<A HREF="258"><IMG SRC="/i-fref.gif" ALT="first in chain"></A>
<A HREF="276"><IMG SRC="/i-pref.gif" ALT="previous in chain"></A>
<A HREF="277"><IMG SRC="/i-prev.gif" ALT="previous"></A>
<A HREF="279"><IMG SRC="/i-next.gif" ALT="next"></A>
<A HREF="279"><IMG SRC="/i-nref.gif" ALT="next in chain"></A>
<A HREF="302"><IMG SRC="/i-lref.gif" ALT="last in chain"></A>
<A HREF="1641"><IMG SRC="/i-last.gif" ALT="last"></A>
<HR><H2>Re: ports</H2>
<H3>daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fri May 20 02:08:49 1994
)</H3>
<PRE>
From: rti@mcs.com (Crispin Bivans)
To: BRANDON@cc.usu.edu (the Lyncx)
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 01:04:58 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: &lt;01HCJF3PC64IBWC3GQ@cc.usu.edu&gt; from "the Lyncx" at May 19, 94 10:14:13 pm

&gt; A: what do _you_ feel about moving the default port to the 5xxx range?
&gt;    the 9xxx range?

No real opinion about that other than '9' looks better.

&gt; B: what do you feel about having a few "known" basic ports, such as those
&gt;    including a fingerd, login, and a few other simple services?

&gt;    would you mind following the scheme:

&gt;       login:     xxx0
&gt;       portmapper xxx1
&gt;       fingerd    xxx2

&gt;    etc?  (i.e. login 5550 portmapper 5551 fingerd 5552 etc).

&gt; For simplicity we could define login as whatever x number we use (i.e. login
&gt; with 5xxx woudl be 5555 or 9xxx would be 9999).

I would really like to see the services implemented as one port as this would
actually simplify access. A 'services' server would run, allowing services
to 'register' themselves as available in the db. And connecting programs could
use supplied db routines to 'announce' what they want from the server. Calling
programs wouldn't have to do much... The receiving services wouldn't have to do
much... And once the 'services' server is built right, it would infinitly
expandable and flexible. The server itself would show whats available to
calling programs as well(and as well to services that wanted to see whats
already 'registered' in the db).

&gt; -Brandon-

+=============================================================================+
|Carrie A. Gram                     |              Email: rti@genesis.mcs.com |
|Programmer: C/SQL/68k ML/Muse/Moo  |                  or rti@mcs.com         |
|Space Simulations and Roleplaying  |        PGP Pub Key: finger rti@mcs.com  |
+=============================================================================+
</PRE>
