Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:34:09 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: alex@pilosoft.com Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port mapping services Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20030806103126.0280ac00@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308061105070.32649-100000@paix.pilosoft.com > References: <200308061525.JAA07305@lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Are the two actually the same protocol? Or is Microsoft's a case of "embrace and extend?" Why do they use different port numbers? (The idea of having multiple port numbers for port mapping seems to defeat the very purpose of having a mapping service in the first place.) Also, I'm looking for examples of firewalls that monitor traffic to and from an RPC server to determine what traffic to allow through. (They obviously have to do this, since one can't rely on "well known" ports.) --Brett Glass At 09:05 AM 8/6/2003, alex@pilosoft.com wrote: >111 is Sun-RPC >135 is MS-RPC
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20030806103126.0280ac00>