[266] in Coldmud discussion meeting

root meeting help first previous next last

Ports and last eve's Pow Wow

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thu May 19 14:44:15 1994 )

Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 12:36:33 -0600 (MDT)
From: the Lyncx <BRANDON@cc.usu.edu>
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU

From last evenings log:

Brandon says, "well, the next thing is the X11 problem."
Ash nods.
Brandon says, "people are right, X11 does snag 6xxx ports"
Brandon asks, "perhaps we should use a different range?"
Ash says, "heh i ran a moo at 6000 once"
Brandon says, "like 5xxx"
Ash says, "couldnt figure out why i couldnt run"
merlin says, "is there anything binding us to 6k? maybe like 9k :)"
Brandon asks, "why 9?"
merlin likes port 9999 for my cold :)
Ash says, "mm i left my list at work"
merlin shrugs. i like 9k range
Ash says, "therse something in the 9xxx range too i think"
merlin says, "5k would be fine too"
Ash nods.

We ended up with this list:

Service                      port
-------                      ----
Login                        xxx0   -- !Normal connections, most used
portmapper                   xxx1   -- !specifies what ports are used
fingerd                      xxx2   -- !rwho/finger port
Link                         xxx3   -- Mud->Mud communications/movement
smtpd                        xxx4   -- !SMTP protocol, can be used for M-M mail
ftpd                         xxx5   -- FTP
httpd                        xxx6   -- HTTP

Others?:   load port (returns load?)

where basically xxx is as of yet undefined.  As mentioned above 6xxx is taken
by X, so we may want to stay away from it.  I would be for 5 or 9, if nothing
is stealing 9xxx range.  The ports with a ! would be the minimal ones I'd
expect to find on a beginning CD Core (as in our core will support those on

Unfortunately, I didn't log the discussion we had on using 1 port compared to
multiple ports.  What it came down to was simplicity, having multiple ports is
simpler and easier to expand.  To add a port through a single port you would
have to modify two objects, not one.  I lied, here is a part of it:

Brandon says, "where xxx is as of yet an undefined number"
Brandon says, "could be 666, I'd prefer 555 (because X snaggs 6xxx)"
Ash asks, "does anything snag anything in the 5 range?"
Brandon not sure.
Ash says, "me either i can check it though"
Brandon says, "I suppose we could put login on xxx6"
Brandon . o O ( i.e. 6666 )
Ash says, "not anthing else like X tho, that grabs the who bunch"
Brandon says, "but if we go 555, then doing that wouldn't make any sense"
Brandon says, "and would probably confuse most people"
Ash nods.
Ash ponders.
SamIAm says, "There"
SamIAm says, "is no need to standardise, IMHO."
SamIAm doesn't really see the benefit, rather.
Brandon says, "there is no benefit"
Brandon says, "other than that I'd like to think this is more than your generic
Brandon says, "and I'm going to try and get a comprehensive core working"
Ash says, "well, the benifit is its standard"
Brandon says, "that can work for a wide range of applications"
SamIAm nods, so the benefit is Brandon feels better... heh.
SamIAm says, "So long as there's a good reason."
Brandon says, "no, the benefit is that it is a standard"
Brandon says, "if somebody fires up a new coldmud"
Ash winks.
Brandon says, "you can know that their fingerd is on port xxxx"
Ash says, "we know what ports to attack! :)"
Brandon says, "AND"
Brandon says, "it does add a touch of credibility"
Brandon says, "if you can say this mud listens to ports xxx-xxx etc"
Ash nods.
Brandon says, "for xxxxx services."
Brandon says, "at least where I'm at"
Brandon says, "that would help a lot"
Brandon says, "it would show that your doing more than just writing a game."
Ash says, "me too prolly"
SamIAm shrugs, go for it.  I think standards for their own sake are a waste of
time, and think the portmapper thing's the way to go... but if it makes everyone
feel better... go for it.
Ash says, "random ports die in a firewall"
Brandon says, "I think the portmapper is a bad thing"
Brandon says, "and only good for extended ports"
Jeff likes the portmapper.
Brandon says, "or specialized ports"
Ash says, "portmapper dies in a firewall :)"
Brandon says, "but you should have a set default standard that everybody should
try to stick with."
Brandon hsm

More discussion (on a different matter):

merlin . o O ( btw, anyone have any ideas on getting cold to show hostnames
instead of strictly ip? )
Ash says, "mmm"
Brandon [to merlin]: no, other than connecting to the nameserver externally...?
Brandon would like coldmud to handle that actually
Brandon says, "we should hit up SamIAm about it"
Ash nods.
Ash says, "or you can make a nameserv object"
Ash shrugs.
merlin monitors all connections to his system, and i liked seeing hostnames
<got to learn everyone's who belonged> but ip nums are harder to memorize :>
merlin tohught about that, but didn't know how to go about it
Ash says, "hostnames are easier to forge"
Brandon says, "well, have both"
merlin asks, "is there a host/port you can telnet to to convert ip -> name?"
merlin says, "ash: anyone willing to go thru all that trouble just to fool me,
can connect to my little insignificant coldmdu :)"
Ash says, "heh"
Ash says, "bad for sitelocks tho"
Brandon says, "nameserver should."


Well, thats long, but its most of the generic server related stuff.