[60549] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Private port numbers?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Thu Aug 14 05:33:22 2003
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:31:48 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: Crist Clark <crist.clark@globalstar.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3F3A93AE.15FB17EE@globalstar.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Crist Clark wrote:
>
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >
> > Be damned if you filter, be damned if you don't. Nice choice.
> >
> > I think it's time that we set aside a range of port numbers for private
> > use. That makes all those services that have no business escaping out
> > in the open extremely easy to filter, while at the same time not
> > impacting any legitimate users.
>
> Cool. So if you use private ports, you'll be totally protected from the
> Internet nasties (and the Internet protected from your broken or malicious
> traffic) in the same way RFC1918 addressing does the exact same thing now
> at the network layer.
Erm? Unless your nasty uses TCP (requiring two-way) you still get the same
potential to spread worms etc as you do on 1918 currently
> I'm sure everyone will filter private ports just as effectively as RFC1918
> and martian addresses are filtered at borders now.
Whoa people filter these things, news to me!
Steve
>
> Can't wait to read the draft and RFC. Rock on.
>
