North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Private port numbers?
- From: Christopher L. Morrow
- Date: Wed Aug 13 18:43:05 2003
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.
what about ports that start as 'private' and are eventually ubiquitously
used on a public network? (Sean Donelan noted that 137->139 were
originally intended to be used in private networks... and they became
'public' over time)