ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Port numbers and IPv6 (was: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy-00.txt)

2005-07-14 08:13:35
In message <42D67CA3(_dot_)3010304(_at_)blueyonder(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>, David 
Hopwood writes:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
3. Thus I come to the key question - how high should the bar be for
assignments in clearly constrained namespaces? This month's poster
child is IPv6 option numbers, but at an even more basic level, we
should probably be more worried about port numbers, where we seem
pretty close to running out of well-known numbers, and moving along
nicely through the registered port numbers.

I was surprised that TCP-over-IPv6 and UDP-over-IPv6 didn't increase
the port number space. I know it's off-topic here, but anyone know why
they didn't? It surely must have been considered.


That was considered to be part of TCPng, and as best I recall was 
explicitly out of scope.

                --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>