Re: Reminder: WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-08 - 26th November 2010

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C4828C0F3 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 04:48:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.489, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dkIzMyp3CcNV for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 04:48:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701F03A6C07 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 04:48:53 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtgEAL/T9UyQ/khMgWdsb2JhbACDUZ9DFQEBFiIiqGOKO5BsgSGDM3MEimY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,283,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="70531472"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2010 12:50:06 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-103-232.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-103-232.cisco.com [10.61.103.232]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB1Co6fh006980; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:50:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4CF6448A.3000601@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:50:18 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: Reminder: WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-08 - 26th November 2010
References: <4CE573AC.6050708@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <p06240827c9108fb7d7f0@[10.20.30.150]> <4CED3A82.5050708@ericsson.com> <p0624089fc912ec9557a7@[10.20.30.150]> <4CF60F04.60101@ericsson.com> <4CF6252A.2020303@cisco.com> <BB803922-E3CD-4B26-9467-8BB14B259D3F@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <BB803922-E3CD-4B26-9467-8BB14B259D3F@nokia.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, tsvwg WG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:48:54 -0000

On 12/1/10 12:05 PM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2010-12-1, at 12:36, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> As I recall, though, nobody really had a problem with dropping the
>> distinction.  It's only there in some UNIX flavors; and the only real
>> issue is on multi-user systems where the port could conceivably be
>> grabbed by someone.  Realistically, that's not a concern because if it's
>> important, there is something listening from start-up.
> "only some Unix flavors" is severely understating the issue. I just tried MacOS, FreeBSD and Ubuntu Linux, and none of them let user process bind to ports below 1024.

There are other varients that have either done away with the distinction
or provided a richer port interface.
> I agree with you that the reasons for having separate port ranges are bogus, but the *reality* is that it *matters* whether your port is above or below 1024 on many deployed systems. And hence it matters for applicants what number they get.

No it doesn't.  The nature of computing today is such that the
distinction is lost because most so-called privileged processes are
running either on single user machines where the user is the
administrator, or on servers where this sort of thing is coordinated.

The rule dates back to the days where one could expect 40 - 60 users on
a system.

Eliot