> 1. Are well known ports archaic? If so, can we request that the IANA > do away with the distinction?
I don't know whether I would use the word "archaic", but the distinction between < 1024 and >= 1024 is certainly Unix-specific. In the Windows operating systems, the port range 1-1023 is not special. Some Windows OS services use low port numbers, but not all. UPNP, for example, uses ports 1900 and 2500; the RPC applications use dynamic port numbers. > 2. If they are not archaic, under what circumstances should they be > allocated? I have no problem with the current system. -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
