Protocols (Was: HTTP)
bofh at stremler.net
Sun Dec 8 19:31:18 PST 2002
begin quoting Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade as of Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 07:03:04PM -0800:
> So why don't we use the same type of functionality that exists in Sun's RPC
That was the path I was thinking of heading down...
> Why not have an inet-portmapper that does the exact same thing for tcp & udp
> port numbers (or hell, make a super-portmap server that handles _all_
> required port mapping and inquiry needs)?
Isn't this what happens with CORBA and RMI?
> It would definitely make firewalling more difficult, but there should be ways
> to fix the firewalls so that it would all work.
Actually, the current system (commonly-used but not required 'standard'
ports) works quite well for that. It's not the technology that is broke.
Well, maybe a little. Why does everyone want their little-used and
useless protocol to have a _reserved_ port?
> Perhaps the solution would actually be a mix of xinetd & portmapper... Who
> knows, I'd have to give it some serious thought, which isn't going to happen
It would be a simple protocol. If I'd kept my perl skillz up, it would
probably be a four-liner.
(Open a port, listen for connections, read one line, strip out all non
alphanumeric characters including whitespace, search /etc/services for
that string, return all lines that match, close the connection.)
-Stewart "These are the standard ports according to ME." Stremler
More information about the KPLUG-List