[hpsdr] The UDP ports in the new Ethernet protocol violate the ethos of the Internet.

[Michael Cozzi]

     Hi Matt,

     Well, I agree you have a point, but in practice most of the ports 
in that range are protocols which are rarely used by hams- or in some 
cases by anyone else.

     Just like no one adheres to fully to 2821 anymore... many of those 
protocol assignments are dead protocols. Personally, given the 
application, those ports don't bother me. Now if it was intended to be a 
WAN protocol... then I might have issue.

     But it is a good point which should be considered.

     Michael- KD8TUT

On 1/14/2016 11:15 AM, Matthew J Wolf wrote:
> ***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****
>
>
> The UDP ports in the new Ethernet protocol violates the ethos of the 
> Internet.
>
> The UDP service ports I see in version 2.3 of Ethernet Protocol 
> document are 1024 to 1114. These UDP ports are part of "Users Ports" 
> port number range. The User Ports range of port are Registered 
> (assigned)  Ports, sec 6 RFC 6335.
>
> Most of the port numbers from 1024 to 1114 are all ready assigned to 
> other protocols.
>
> It is bad form to reuse all ready assigned ports with a different 
> protocol.
>
> There is range of ports that have been set aside for local and dynamic 
> use. Local being network traffic that will not be sent over the 
> Internet. The port range is the "Dynamic Ports", sec 6 RFC 6335.
>
>
> First bullet point from section 8.1.2 of RFC 6335:
>
>       "Ports in the Dynamic Ports range (49152-65535) have been
>       specifically set aside for local and dynamic use and cannot be
>       assigned through IANA.  Application software may simply use any
>       dynamic port that is available on the local host, without any sort
>       of assignment.  On the other hand, application software MUST NOT
>       assume that a specific port number in the Dynamic Ports range will
>       always be available for communication at all times, and a port
>       number in that range hence MUST NOT be used as a service
>       identifier."
>
> I think the Ethernet protocol should use ports from the Dynamic Ports 
> range. Why not start at port 55555.
>
> Another possibility is that we get one assigned port. Use the assigned 
> port for discovery and initial configuration. Then as part of the 
> initial configuration switch to using ports from the Dynamic Ports range.
>
> I think it would be difficult getting more than one port number 
> assigned.  The assignment process is outlined in RFC 6335.
>
>
> There is the issue that the port numbers in the Dynamic Ports range 
> will use more bits in the datagrams.
>
> The whole point of the Internet standards is to allow interoperability 
> on the Internet. Will the contents of the Ethernet protocol every make 
> it on to the Internet?
>
>
> A link to a HTML version of RFC 6335, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335
>
> A link to HTML list of the assigned port numbers, 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml
>
>
> -Matthew Wolf, N4MTT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> HPSDR Discussion List
> To post msg: hpsdr at openhpsdr.org
> Subscription help: 
> http://lists.openhpsdr.org/listinfo.cgi/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org
> HPSDR web page: http://openhpsdr.org
> Archives: http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/


 1452829221.0