Subject: Re: anonymous port numbers (was NetBSD master CVS tree commits )
To: Ken Hornstein <email@example.com>
From: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/31/1997 11:24:50
Ken Hornstein writes:
> >I highly, highly prefer the former. We *should* be using the IANA
> >approved range. The reason for permitting the user to use the other
> >range is because some users have difficulty with firewalls. It is fine
> >to help out those users, but it is *not* necessary to give people
> >enough flexibility to do useless and possibly dangerous things.
> I dunno ... who's to say that you won't encounter _another_ broken
> firewall, because another operating system uses a different ephemeral
> port range?
So far as I know, almost everyone on earth stole the 4.3 ephemeral
port range. I do a lot of firewall work and have found no exceptions
other than the (increasing but small number) of OSes that do the IANA