Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #34460 > unrolled thread

Re: Picking an unused port number

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Picking an unused port number nathanturner369@gmail.com - 2016-06-04 08:24 -0700
    Re: Picking an unused port number Knute Johnson <nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> - 2016-06-04 09:56 -0700
      Re: Picking an unused port number Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 05:28 -0700
        Re: Picking an unused port number Knute Johnson <nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> - 2016-06-06 15:40 -0700
          Re: Picking an unused port number Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2016-06-07 09:43 +0100
            Re: Picking an unused port number Knute Johnson <nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> - 2016-06-07 07:43 -0700
              Re: Picking an unused port number Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2016-06-07 17:28 +0100
                Re: Picking an unused port number Knute Johnson <nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> - 2016-06-07 09:40 -0700
                  Re: Picking an unused port number Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2016-06-08 10:32 +0100
                    Re: Picking an unused port number Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 06:45 -0700
                      Re: Picking an unused port number Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2016-06-08 15:06 +0100
                        Re: Picking an unused port number Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 07:36 -0700
                          Re: Picking an unused port number Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-08 18:03 +0000
    Re: Picking an unused port number Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-06-04 20:50 -0400
      Re: Picking an unused port number Wayne <wayne@nospam.invalid> - 2016-06-06 18:44 -0400
        Re: Picking an unused port number Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-06-06 20:52 -0400
          Re: Picking an unused port number Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-06 21:28 -0400
            Re: Picking an unused port number Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-06-06 21:45 -0400
              Re: Picking an unused port number Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-06 23:07 -0400
                Re: Picking an unused port number Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-06-07 09:50 -0400
                  Re: Picking an unused port number Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 13:46 -0700
                    Re: Picking an unused port number Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-06-07 19:31 -0400
                      Re: Picking an unused port number Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 17:26 -0700
                        Re: Picking an unused port number Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-06-07 21:34 -0400
                          Re: Picking an unused port number Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:52 -0700
                            Re: Picking an unused port number Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-06-08 17:49 -0400
                  Re: Picking an unused port number Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-07 21:53 -0400
          Re: Picking an unused port number a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2016-06-07 00:11 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#34546

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 6:50:15 AM UTC-7, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 6/6/2016 11:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >> 0-4095 are generally considered "reserved" by commonly used protocols.
> >> Others are used by other protocols, but not generally considered "in
> >> use".
> > 
> > That is not how IANA looks at it.
> > 
> > Arne
> > 
> > 
> 
> Whatever.  You're the expert on EVERYTHING.  Trolls always are.

The troll is the one who engages in the ad hominem attack, not the person providing valid information. 

So it's not Arne. It's Jerry Stuckle.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34551

On 6/7/2016 4:46 PM, Lew wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 6:50:15 AM UTC-7, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 6/6/2016 11:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> 0-4095 are generally considered "reserved" by commonly used protocols.
>>>> Others are used by other protocols, but not generally considered "in
>>>> use".
>>>
>>> That is not how IANA looks at it.
>>>
>>> Arne
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Whatever.  You're the expert on EVERYTHING.  Trolls always are.
> 
> The troll is the one who engages in the ad hominem attack, not the person providing valid information. 
> 
> So it's not Arne. It's Jerry Stuckle.
> 

ROFLMAO!  I call them as I see them.  Arne has repeatedly proven to be a
troll, and not just in this newsgroup.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34554

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:31:30 PM UTC-7, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 6/7/2016 4:46 PM, Lew wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 6:50:15 AM UTC-7, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >> On 6/6/2016 11:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >>>> 0-4095 are generally considered "reserved" by commonly used protocols.
> >>>> Others are used by other protocols, but not generally considered "in
> >>>> use".
> >>>
> >>> That is not how IANA looks at it.
> >>>
> >>> Arne
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Whatever.  You're the expert on EVERYTHING.  Trolls always are.
> > 
> > The troll is the one who engages in the ad hominem attack, not the person providing valid information. 
> > 
> > So it's not Arne. It's Jerry Stuckle.
> > 
> 
> ROFLMAO!  I call them as I see them.  Arne has repeatedly proven to be a
> troll, and not just in this newsgroup.

And likewise I call them as I see them. Your word "proven" is not accurate. You have proven nothing. You called him a name. That is your behavior, and it's trollish. Arne's posts over several years have been singularly devoid of trollish behavior. I've been following his posts for well over a decade and have never seen him devolve into trollery. 

You are behaving like a jerk, Jerry.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34558

On 6/7/2016 8:26 PM, Lew wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:31:30 PM UTC-7, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 6/7/2016 4:46 PM, Lew wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 6:50:15 AM UTC-7, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 6/6/2016 11:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> 0-4095 are generally considered "reserved" by commonly used protocols.
>>>>>> Others are used by other protocols, but not generally considered "in
>>>>>> use".
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not how IANA looks at it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arne
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whatever.  You're the expert on EVERYTHING.  Trolls always are.
>>>
>>> The troll is the one who engages in the ad hominem attack, not the person providing valid information. 
>>>
>>> So it's not Arne. It's Jerry Stuckle.
>>>
>>
>> ROFLMAO!  I call them as I see them.  Arne has repeatedly proven to be a
>> troll, and not just in this newsgroup.
> 
> And likewise I call them as I see them. Your word "proven" is not accurate. You have proven nothing. You called him a name. That is your behavior, and it's trollish. Arne's posts over several years have been singularly devoid of trollish behavior. I've been following his posts for well over a decade and have never seen him devolve into trollery. 
> 
> You are behaving like a jerk, Jerry.
> 

I don't need to prove anything to the likes of you, Lew.  Just look
around and you can find it out for yourself.

And quite frankly, I learned a long time ago not to worry about what
people like you think of me.  My life has been much happier since then.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34576

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 6:34:56 PM UTC-7, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> I don't need to prove anything to the likes of you, Lew.  Just look
> around and you can find it out for yourself.

You actually have an intellectual responsibility to be truthful and  factual. Not for me, but because it's the right thing to do. This isn't for my benefit.

> And quite frankly, I learned a long time ago not to worry about what
> people like you think of me.  My life has been much happier since then.

Again, this is not about what I think. This is about whether your behavior is honorable. When you lie like that, it is not honorable.

I have, as I said and you ignored, followed Arne's posts for many years. Stating relevant facts about which you were wrong is not trolling; it's furthering the knowledge of all participants.
Of course, you are never going to admit that every drop of venom that you spew is anything but the Milk of Human Wisdom. But you'd be the better person if you'd at least be responsible for the statements that you assert as fact. This business of snide innuendo from you is just garbage.

Despite your egotistical ranting, it's not all about you, Jerry.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34579

On 6/8/2016 4:52 PM, Lew wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 6:34:56 PM UTC-7, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> I don't need to prove anything to the likes of you, Lew.  Just look
>> around and you can find it out for yourself.
> 
> You actually have an intellectual responsibility to be truthful and  factual. Not for me, but because it's the right thing to do. This isn't for my benefit.
> 
>> And quite frankly, I learned a long time ago not to worry about what
>> people like you think of me.  My life has been much happier since then.
> 
> Again, this is not about what I think. This is about whether your behavior is honorable. When you lie like that, it is not honorable.
> 
> I have, as I said and you ignored, followed Arne's posts for many years. Stating relevant facts about which you were wrong is not trolling; it's furthering the knowledge of all participants.
> Of course, you are never going to admit that every drop of venom that you spew is anything but the Milk of Human Wisdom. But you'd be the better person if you'd at least be responsible for the statements that you assert as fact. This business of snide innuendo from you is just garbage.
> 
> Despite your egotistical ranting, it's not all about you, Jerry.
> 

You don't have a clue, that's for sure.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34559

On 6/7/2016 9:50 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 6/6/2016 11:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 6/6/2016 9:45 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 6/6/2016 9:28 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 6/6/2016 8:52 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> On 6/6/2016 6:44 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/2016 8:50 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/4/2016 11:24 AM, nathanturner369@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> So, in general, is there any rule you should use when selecting a
>>>>>>>>> port
>>>>>>>>> number, other than picking one > 1024?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Make it configurable, and > 4095, not 1024.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ports 0-4095 are reserved.
>>>>
>>>> ????
>>>>
>>>> 0-1023 are system ports
>>>> 1024-49151 are registered ports
>>>> 49152–65535 are ephemeral ports
>>>>
>>>> 80XX port numbers are very frequently used in the Java world.
>>>>
>>
>>> If 1024-49151 are registered ports, then why would 80xx ports be used in
>>> the Java world?
>>
>> Many possible reasons:
>> - they may have been assigned to the Java purpose
>> - they may have been assigned to a general purpose that is compatible
>> with Java usage
>> - they may not have been assigned yet
>>
>
> "May" does not work.  Which is it?

Most likely all of them.

Many ports - many reasons.

>>> 0-4095 are generally considered "reserved" by commonly used protocols.
>>> Others are used by other protocols, but not generally considered "in
>>> use".
>>
>> That is not how IANA looks at it.
>
> Whatever.  You're the expert on EVERYTHING.  Trolls always are.

One does not need to be an expert to know about IANA and RFC 6335.

Nor to understand RFC 6335 about pot number ranges:

<quote>
6.  Port Number Ranges

    TCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for their
    port number registries.  The port registries for all of these
    transport protocols are subdivided into three ranges of numbers
    [RFC1340], and Section 8.1.2 describes the IANA procedures for each
    range in detail:

    o  the System Ports, also known as the Well Known Ports, from 0-1023
       (assigned by IANA)

    o  the User Ports, also known as the Registered Ports, from 1024-
       49151 (assigned by IANA)

    o  the Dynamic Ports, also known as the Private or Ephemeral Ports,
       from 49152-65535 (never assigned)

    Of the assignable port ranges (System Ports and User Ports, i.e.,
    port numbers 0-49151), individual port numbers are in one of three
    states at any given time:

    o  Assigned: Assigned port numbers are currently assigned to the
       service indicated in the registry.

    o  Unassigned: Unassigned port numbers are currently available for
       assignment upon request, as per the procedures outlined in this
       document.

    o  Reserved: Reserved port numbers are not available for regular
       assignment; they are "assigned to IANA" for special purposes.
       Reserved port numbers include values at the edges of each range,
       e.g., 0, 1023, 1024, etc., which may be used to extend these
       ranges or the overall port number space in the future.

    In order to keep the size of the registry manageable, IANA typically
    only records the Assigned and Reserved service names and port numbers
    in the registry.  Unassigned values are typically not explicitly
    listed.  (There are very many Unassigned service names and
    enumerating them all would not be practical.)

    As a data point, when this document was written, approximately 76% of
    the TCP and UDP System Ports were assigned, and approximately 9% of
    the User Ports were assigned.  (As noted, Dynamic Ports are never
    assigned.)
</quote>

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34517

As usual, you're wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web