[281] in Coldmud discussion meeting

ports...

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fri May 20 09:53:40 1994 )

Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 13:18:13 -0700
From: rayn@q.crossaccess.com (Ray Nawara jr.)
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU

as far as i can see, nothing real big uses anything above 2766, except
in the 6xxx range, which includes X, and IRC. some MBone multicast
stuff uses things in the 4000's, as well as 3456-7 and 9876, but I
dont think these are common, and seem to be only used at those
specific sites. perhaps to be considered though.

single port would be the most useful for inside a firewall, but as you
said, most likely a server running in a firewall will only allow
telnet anyway. As to running inside a firewall, Lambda did for some
time, I believe. This is why nothing was done there with onc for a
while. the concept is to make it so that the core isnt designed such
that you have to worry about security issues, i.e. make it as secure
as possible, with options to lessen the security, instead of the other
way around ;) my objections to portmapper were mostly based on the rpc
version which uses callbacks and can be spoofed, which is not as much
of an issue for this case. a general portsinfo port is a good idea i
think, if we're not going to use single port... actually I suggest
having only 2 "abolute standard" ports in the core, the telnet port
and the portinfo port. If so desired, all services can be done through
the main port, and the portifo port will tell this. having standard
ports for services is still a good idea, IMHO, and it seems to me that
the multiple ports makes it easier to disable selected services (not
really by much though i guess).



	Ray/Ash