Re: [Uta] Port 465

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 07 March 2014 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09561A027E for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 05:06:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9YkCpAPpc7yY for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 05:06:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2601A00EB for <uta@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 05:06:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2737; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394197593; x=1395407193; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ygmStntL4RX4485GNYS4vhVCqE5u5z2Ws6BEoASQbdg=; b=R2R7Y4fOOC7c14ksARrkT37jZ6WUISEnqWD2lh7/tvCzCW5guJs44JAU ePyQlD5LbFZGbgMB38ZYLOy6S4DQ59aAMaFpprNunfhvN2/2D34yUS9H9 KUTZs/ANwTBWcc5bCiBjGbPwh7MAa0H7DpJuIDQcKgHwLa83MHLy0PlXK o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlcFABvDGVOQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABagwY7g126LYNzgRMWdIIlAQEBBAEBASBLChELGAICBQwKCwICCQMCAQIBFTAGAQwGAgEBh3UNrj+hHxeBKYxQCgYCAVYKgmWBSQSYQ5Irgy09gSwi
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,607,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="2867029"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2014 13:06:31 +0000
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp4143.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp4143.cisco.com [10.61.80.46]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s27D6VLg013798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:06:31 GMT
Message-ID: <5319C457.2050602@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 13:06:31 +0000
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>, uta@ietf.org
References: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C711FB9AAD89@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <8691BA706C9BAB52D64A8444@96B2F16665FF96BAE59E9B90>
In-Reply-To: <8691BA706C9BAB52D64A8444@96B2F16665FF96BAE59E9B90>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/u1rXR7GB6ztUD_vM5ZO0Gi7OQ_c
Subject: Re: [Uta] Port 465
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: UTA working group mailing list <uta.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uta/>
List-Post: <mailto:uta@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 13:06:39 -0000

Hi Chris,

I did some quick checking with Toerless, who is the contact.  The port
is assigned for a specific use, which is URD, a transitional technology
for IGMPv2/IGMPv3 & SSM.  Cisco currently supports the use of the
protocol, and perhaps as important, it is used as an intercept for *any*
destination IP address on that port when URD is enabled.

Eliot

On 3/7/14, 11:38 AM, Chris Newman wrote:
> --On March 7, 2014 5:33:24 -0500 "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
>> Some info.  It's a pub-sub protocol for limited multicast used by cisco
>> routers.
>>
>>
> http://www.idonotes.com/IdoNotes/idonotes.nsf/dx/08172006023221PMCMIQT4.htm
> (note the date tho)
>>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2/ip/configuration/guide/fipr_c/1cfssm.html
>
>
> Here's the current text on this topic in draft-newman-email-deep:
>
> ----
>   IANA is asked to assign an alternate usage of port 465 in addition to
>   the current assignment using the following template ([RFC6335]):
> ...
>   This is a one time procedural exception to the rules in RFC 6335.
>   This requires explicit IESG approval and does not set a precedent.
>   Historically, port 465 was briefly registered as the "smtps" port.
>   This registration made no sense as the SMTP transport MX
>   infrastructure has no way to specify a port so port 25 is always
>   used.  As a result, the registration was revoked and was subsequently
>   reassigned to a different service.  In hindsight, the "smtps"
>   registration should have been renamed or reserved rather than
>   revoked.  Unfortunately, some widely deployed mail software
>   interpreted "smtps" as "submissions" [RFC6409] and used that port for
>   email submission by default when an end-user requests security during
>   account setup.  If a new port is assigned for the submissions
>   service, email software will either continue with unregistered use of
>   port 465 (leaving the port registry inaccurate relative to de-facto
>   practice and wasting a well-known port), or confusion between the de-
>   facto and registered ports will cause harmful interoperability
>   problems that will deter use of TLS for message submission.  The
>   authors believe both of these outcomes are less desirable than a wart
>   in the registry documenting real-world usage of a port for two
>   purposes.  Although STARTTLS-on-port-587 has deployed, it has not
>   replaced deployed use of implicit TLS submission on port 465.
> ----
>
> I welcome discussion and socialization to port registry folks.
>
>         - Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> Uta@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
>
>