[257] in Coldmud discussion meeting

root meeting help first first in chain previous in chain previous next last

Re: ports...

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Wed May 18 17:12:33 1994 )

From: stewarta@netcom.com (Alex Stewart)
To: rayn@q.crossaccess.com (Ray Nawara jr.)
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 13:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9405182009.AA23720@q.crossaccess.com> from "Ray Nawara jr." at May 18, 94 01:09:23 pm

> I think standardized ports for inter ColdMUD stuff is a good idea, but
> they can be pretty much arbitrary, right? It'd probably be better to
> keep them in as tight a range as possible instead of scattered in the
> 66xx range, especially considering the equivalency extends up to above
> 99, as has been mentioned.

Actually, I see no reason, really, why standardized ColdMUD-ColdMUD
communications can't be done using only one port number for all types of
communication (simply identify when you connect what type of
thing you want to do).  It's really rather foolish to clutter up the namespace
(portspace?) and make conflicts several times more likely when you don't really
need to.

As for "listener" ports for hooking into standard IP services like SMTP, there
is absolutely no reason this needs to be standardized anyway, and people might
as well just set them up to be whatever works on the machine they're running
on.  it's a purely local issue anyway.

So in short, pick _one_ port, make sure it's not used for anything obvious, and
handle service differentiation in a much more civilized manner post-connection.
(there are these nifty things called protocols...)