On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 15:54 +0100, David Hopwood wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > 3. Thus I come to the key question - how high should the bar be for > > assignments in clearly constrained namespaces? This month's poster > > child is IPv6 option numbers, but at an even more basic level, we > > should probably be more worried about port numbers, where we seem > > pretty close to running out of well-known numbers, and moving along > > nicely through the registered port numbers. > > I was surprised that TCP-over-IPv6 and UDP-over-IPv6 didn't increase > the port number space. I know it's off-topic here, but anyone know why > they didn't? It surely must have been considered.
It would not make much sense, between 2 hosts you can already have 65536*65536 possible connections*, which should be more than enough(tm) ;) I wonder if there are any hosts actually using more than 65536 connections at the same time. Greets, Jeroen * = Listening sockets of course limit this quite a bit, but even with 20000 listening sockets, 40k*60k is still a lot.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
