From owner-cvs-all Wed Jun 30 13:43:16 1999 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8DB156B3; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:43:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA74398; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:37:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) To: Doug Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" , "Jordan K. Hubbard" , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc services In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:16:07 PDT." Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:37:30 -0700 Message-ID: <74394.930775050@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > radius 1812/tcp RADIUS > radius 1812/udp RADIUS Actually, they didn't claim that 1812/1813 were the bogus numbers, they claimed that the quoted RFCs were bogus. In any case, I think this is a firm case of a defacto standard colliding with an official one and not so much a matter of "right" and "wrong" in any truly boolean sense. I'd still like to hear more about who uses the new assignments as defaults - so far I've checked the defaults on our local cisco 2501 and Livingston PM2er [ick] and they both use 1645/1646. Any ISP plugging along with the defaults on that equipment is going to hit a wall with a radius that has gotten its port assignments properly through /etc/services and that's just bogus too. If I were writing radius authentication daemons then I'd probably have mine listen on both points, but happily I'm not writing any of those these days. :-) Assuming that you are intent on keeping this quirk, the least that > should be done is a PROBLEMS! note added to the file at both locations. > AFAIAC, there is justification for keeping the broken behavior, but not > commenting it will only cause confusion down the road. I could certainly live with (and even enthusiastically support) such a compromise. Perhaps the 1812/1813 entries still in there but commented out with a notation as to why, along with uncommented 1645/1646 entries which also point to the other entries as the "official but not often used" ones? Would that make you and Rod happy? :-) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message