--On Wednesday, 24 May, 2006 19:06 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Disclaimer - I wasn't even aware of this document before
reading this thread. However, I have now read it, so feel
prepared to comment.
...
(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.
This is not correct. They do, indeed, assign values. They also
apply some minimal rules in doing so. Squatting on unassigned
values, while it does happen, is considered to be in bad taste.
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.
...
FWIW, I tend to agree.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf