Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-known-ports-00.txt
Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> Wed, 24 May 2006 23:06 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj2RK-0004ZU-BU; Wed, 24 May 2006 19:06:54 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj2RI-0004ZP-Va for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 19:06:52 -0400
Received: from chokecherry.srv.cs.cmu.edu ([128.2.185.41]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj2RH-0008MB-NN for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 19:06:52 -0400
Received: from sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu (SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.209.170]) (authenticated bits=0) by chokecherry.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k4ON6nrW008222 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 24 May 2006 19:06:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 19:06:49 -0400
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Message-ID: <7DFCB2920E3DCE504E503EBD@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <44745B81.8000508@cisco.com>
References: <883F4A921E26D32C08E569F0@p3.JCK.COM> <44745B81.8000508@cisco.com>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01v7A2RikYq7oL+67H8i5mtVYibXFG5K8sJWSr9TA=; token_authority=postmaster@andrew.cmu.edu
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-known-ports-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Disclaimer - I wasn't even aware of this document before reading this thread. However, I have now read it, so feel prepared to comment. On Wednesday, May 24, 2006 03:11:29 PM +0200 Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote: > Yes, the distinction between well known ports and just assigned ports is > outdated. The overarching theme of the document is that the IANA should > be treated as a group of adults and that they should use some discretion > with oversight only where needed. Careful here... (1) The IANA is a group of adults, but it is no longer a group of protocol subject matter experts. IMHO there is probably no need for IESG oversight of port number allocation, especially if we are eliminating the (artificial) scarcity of so-called well-known ports. (2) As I understand it, for ports above 1024, the IANA does _not_ assign values - it just registers uses claimed by others. Eliminating well-known ports eliminates any assignment role, and leaves us with just a registry of what people have claimed. Note that this means there is no mechanism which prevents the same number from being registered by more than one registry. That said, I support the elimination of well-known ports and transformation of the port number registry into a "flat" registry in which all ports are basically considered equal. I do _not_ support the introduction of a charging model, for a couple of reasons. First, I don't want to see port numbers become a politicized commodity, like IP address space and domain names have. Second, I believe that having a complete, accurate registry of port numbers is highly valuable. If there is a charge to register a port, and a recurring charge to maintain a registration, then no one will register their ports for private or vendor-specific use and/or minor protocols. That means that they won't be known to network administrators or network traffic analysis tools, and people looking for an unused port - even if they intend to register and pay for it - will have a difficult time finding one that is actually free. It also means that registrations will tend to disappear over time, such that valuable historical information is lost. A charging model works for domain names because they have to appear in a central registry or they don't work. It works for IP addresses, mostly(*), because if two unrelated networks publish routes for the same address space, each of them loses some of the time, and no one wants to lose. It won't work for port numbers because only very widely-deployed protocols need port numbers that aren't in use by _anything_ else. (*) Some years ago, there was a period of time lasting several months when users of a particular large network provider were unable to communicate with CMU, because that provider had usurped 128.2/16 for some private use within its network. We were Not Amused(tm), and had quite a time getting it fixed. And that was in the days when you could usually look up a network in the internic whois server, then pick up the phone and reach someone who actually understood something about his network. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-know… John C Klensin
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Eliot Lear
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Jeffrey Hutzelman
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… John C Klensin
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… David Conrad
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… David Conrad
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Eliot Lear
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Joe Touch
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Eliot Lear
- RE: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Joe Touch
- RE: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Joe Touch
- RE: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Joe Touch
- Re: Questions about draft-lear-iana-no-more-well-… Mark Andrews