Re: Application for port-number (system-klensin) (revised) (fwd)

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

At 10:16 PM -0800 11/06/2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>--On 6. november 2003 09:16 -0500 "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com> wrote:
>
>>More seriously...  I can think of only two reasons why a server needs a
>>"system" port:  to prevent accidental or intentional collisions with
>>user processes that might be assigned that port, and to make it easier
>>to firewall if you're using a simple packet filter.
>
>As John says in his note:
>"the advantages of a well-known/ system port for an application protocol that provides a support function should be obvious if the distinction is worth anything at all."
>
>I wouldn't say that it's worth much. But if the distinction is ever worth making, I think this protocol should get one.

Can you discuss a little further why?  Someone else's perspective on where this might
fit as a service would help me mightily.
					Ted