[e2e] What if there were no well known numbers?
day at std.com
Fri Aug 4 07:30:30 PDT 2006
You are absolutely correct. Well-known sockets were a kludge. An
expediency so that we could test the 3 applications we had and get
ready for a demo. They weren't intended to last forever, or even
very long. But since we went 20 years with no new applications, a
lot of people began to make up myths as to why they were a great
idea. We have to guard those the stone tablets after all.
Well-known sockets are just one indication that what we have is an
At 17:17 -0500 2006/08/02, John Kristoff wrote:
>Could the removal of well known numbers actually be a rousing change
>more fundamental to the Internet architecture than anything we've seen
>before, even more so than commercialization, Microsoft Windows
>implementation nuances, NATs and multihoming. Indulge me for a momment.
>There is a Internet Draft that has as part of the file name
>"no-more-well-known-ports". The basic idea is that DNS SRV lookups
>should be used to determine a unique port with which to get service
>from the intended destination server.
>In some ways this approach is appealing. I thought it might be a
>nice way to slow the tide of arbitrary protocol port filtering and
>hamper common remote attacks against a particular well known service.
>Looking ahead a bit howver, if this were widely implemented, what
>other outcomes might we see given some time? DNS would become
>increasingly important of course. Maybe even enough for a small
>boom market within that sector. I can envision companies selling
>boxes that "mangle" or proxy SRV responses in the name of some
>defined site policy.
>In short, couldn't this, wouldn't this, lead to a rapid rise in DNS-
>based walled gardens (or if you prefer the quick and steady rise of
>a fractured root, eventual modus operandi) as everyone moves to
>replace their udp/tcp packet manglers with RR-scrubbers?
>Am I way off here?
More information about the end2end-interest