Subject: Re: Reserved port range patches
To: None <>
From: Matthias Scheler <>
List: tech-net
Date: 08/24/2000 18:56:58
In article <>, (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> It would: a) be nice if they were named the same as in FreeBSD; ...

FreeBSD naming scheme is not consistent with the existing variables
"net.inet.ip.anonportmin" and "net.inet.ip.anonportmax".

> b) be nice if they were accompanied by the other pair from FreeBSD;

We already have variables to that the anonymous ports.

> ... and c) be even nicer if they behaved the same way as they do in FreeBSD
> (i.e. that the range can be specified in high-to-low order to do the
> allocation from top down).....

What advantage would this have? The purpose is to reserve ports for
incoming connections to certain services.

	Kind regards

Matthias Scheler