Subject: Re: Any SUP servers that use non-priviledged port?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Niklas Hallqvist <email@example.com>
Date: 06/29/1995 10:28:37
>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Thieleke <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Jeff> Are there any SUP servers that work on the unpriviledged port
Jeff> (1173) as opposed to the regular port (871)? My only net
Jeff> connection is via SLiRP - a SLIP emulator that allows you to
Jeff> redirect nonpriviledged ports, so I can't use the regular SUP
Huh? That would be true if you were the server, but not when you're
the client. You shuld be able to drive SUP as ordinary, I do, but
with one drawback. It won't work! At least it doesn't for me. I
have severe problems sending large packets over Slirp, like when
sending the needlist of SUP or uploading large files via FTP. I
haven't been able to figure out where the problem is nor reported it
to danjo. If you get it to work please tell me. The problem seems to
be lost ACKs from the remote, but I don't really know if the ACKs are
lost or if the packets that I send get lost on the way. One thing is
clear though, it is a statistical recurrent problem. I can reproduce
it all the time, but it's never exactly the same. Sometimes I get a
couple of Ks sent, sometimes the first packet never get ACKed. If I
had a possibility to run tcpdump at the Slirp host, I'd quite easy
figure it out, I guess, but now I don't.
But, you should *not* need to contact a SUP server running at an
unpriviledged port. If so, ordinary FTP or Telnet would fail as well.
It's only incoming requests directed at unpriviledged port that fail
for obvious reasons (if you ain't root when starting Slirp, of course).