Kjetil Torgrim Homme
kjetilho at ifi.uio.no
Mon Sep 20 15:39:14 UTC 1999
> greg andruk <meowing at banet.net> writes:
> > Just 119 and >1024 seems a bit restrictive to hard code. Might be good
> > to make the allowed port something to specify in configure, or at least
> > allow the typical alternatives like 433 and 120.
> Yup. Already planning on adding an option to configure. If there
> are particular common alternatives that people can agree on, I'll
> add that too, but every person who's mentioned it so far has
> listed a different one. :)
Well, 433 is really a given, since it's in the assigned-numbers list
from IANA. This would certainly have bit me, if I upgraded, since I
run nnrpd out of inetd. Is that an unusual thing to do?
I've seen 434, but that's assigned to something else, likewise for
120. Would it be worthwhile to get another number assigned? It could
be useful in a Diablo setting with everything running on one host:
433 for peering
119 for readers
nnn for the connection between feeder and reader.
Some people might argue that the cleaner solution is an logical
interface with another IP-address for the feeder or reader.
More information about the inn-workers