[260] in Coldmud discussion meeting

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

Re: Ports

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thu May 19 07:10:10 1994 )

From: stewarta@netcom.com (Alex Stewart)
To: BRANDON@cc.usu.edu (the Lyncx)
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 03:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
Reply-To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <01HCHR6VFIKYBWBLTB@cc.usu.edu> from "the Lyncx" at May 18, 94 05:37:45 pm

> The idea of connecting thorugh the same port for _everything_ is bad in my
> opinion.

Any particular reason why, or just this feeling you have?  The only reason
other internet services generally require connecting to different ports is due
primarily to the fact that there's no other way to conveniently merge the
disparate protocol specifications in use by different types of operations.
However, since we're building all of this all at once, it is minimally harder,
and much better in my opinion, to build them all into one meta-protocol on one
port, particularly given that the operations we'd be linking are all related
and would generally require similar types of accesses anyway.

> We can use more ports, why not use them?

Geez, Lynx.  I said exactly why not.  You multiply the chances of port number
conflicts many times over and are just asking for headaches when there's really
no reason to.

Crag's proposal is also a possibility, tho it seems like more work and would
require two connects to get a service in some cases instead of one, and I'm
still not sure what reason there is for using multiple ports at all..