From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 6 09:34:22 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE23737B401 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0226243F3F for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:34:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08080; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:34:14 -0600 (MDT) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook renders your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030806103126.0280ac00@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:34:09 -0600 To: alex@pilosoft.com From: Brett Glass In-Reply-To: References: <200308061525.JAA07305@lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port mapping services X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:34:23 -0000 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