Subject: Re: Reserved port range patches
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Matthias Scheler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/24/2000 18:56:58
In article <20000824185332.824CC99@proven.weird.com>,
email@example.com (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.
Matthias Scheler http://www.sighardstrasse.de/~tron/