North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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)