[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Do we actually need dynamic ports?



>>>>> "Mahalingam" == Mahalingam  <Mani> writes:

 Mahalingam> There's a definite justification to be made for an
 Mahalingam> increasing number of (peer-peer) protocols that negotiate
 Mahalingam> dynamic ports, such as in H.323, ...

How many are there, actually?

There's FTP (though that has a workaround -- passive mode).  There's
H.323, widely considered an amazingly ugly protocol.  Are there any
others that matter?

Is there "an increasing number" of these protocols?  Or do protocol
designers realize that it's a bad idea to design protocols like this?

People like to bitch about NAT, but NAT is a reality, and it's a
powerful force pushing protocols away from dynamic port hackery like
H.323. 

	  paul