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

On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 15:54 +0100, David Hopwood wrote:
> 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.
It would not make much sense, between 2 hosts you can already have
65536*65536 possible connections*, which should be more than
enough(tm) ;) I wonder if there are any hosts actually using more than
65536 connections at the same time.

Greets,
 Jeroen

* = Listening sockets of course limit this quite a bit, but even with
20000 listening sockets, 40k*60k is still a lot.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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