nanog mailing list archives
Re: Private port numbers?
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:10:05 +0200
On woensdag, aug 13, 2003, at 21:38 Europe/Amsterdam, Crist Clark wrote:
Cool. So if you use private ports, you'll be totally protected from theInternet nasties (and the Internet protected from your broken or malicious traffic) in the same way RFC1918 addressing does the exact same thing nowat the network layer.
That would be the theory, yes. (I grant you that it won't be quite this simple in practice.)
I'm sure everyone will filter private ports just as effectively as RFC1918and martian addresses are filtered at borders now.
It's not the same thing. RFC 1918 and martian addresses aren't supposed to be present on the internet, but aren't automatically harmful. Having services that are explicitly labeled for internal use be visible to the rest of the world is potentially very harmful.
Current thread:
- Private port numbers? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 13)
- Re: Private port numbers? Crist Clark (Aug 13)
- Re: Private port numbers? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 13)
- Re: Private port numbers? Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 13)
- Re: Private port numbers? Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 13)
- Re: Private port numbers? David G. Andersen (Aug 13)
- RE: Private port numbers? Lars Higham (Aug 13)
- Re: Private port numbers? Crist Clark (Aug 14)
- Re: Private port numbers? Mans Nilsson (Aug 14)
- Death of IPv6 Site-Local (was Re: Private port numbers?) Crist Clark (Aug 14)
- Re: Death of IPv6 Site-Local (was Re: Private port numbers?) Jeremy T. Bouse (Aug 14)
- Re: Private port numbers? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 13)
- Re: Private port numbers? Crist Clark (Aug 13)