Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:53:25 -0600 From: Dustin Wenz <dustinwenz@ebureau.com> To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Default ephemeral port range Message-ID: <BB69C6A7-40E5-4C9B-B95C-2B1A7BC9DAE6@ebureau.com> In-Reply-To: <50A338FB.9060602@gont.com.ar> References: <87A2D317-77BA-4641-979D-0AE43247D99E@ebureau.com> <50A338FB.9060602@gont.com.ar>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 14, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> = wrote: > On 11/12/2012 02:57 PM, Dustin Wenz wrote: >> I'm trying to determine why the default ephemeral port range appears >> to be 10000 through 65535 in at least 8.1 through 9.1RC. >=20 > I had produced the patch that extended the ephemeral port range in > FreeBSD. My original patch extended the ephemeral port range to > 1024-65535. However, it was noted that X uses ports in the range > 1024-10000, and hence it was better to exclude that port range from = the > ephemeral port range. >=20 >=20 >> The IANA recommends the range be 49152 through 65535 >> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6056). >=20 > IANA *used* to recommend that range. In RFC 6056 we recommend > implementations to use the largest possible port range -- ideally > 1024-65536. >=20 Ah; that clarifies things quite a bit. There seems to be a lot of = incorrect/outdated information online about this. The suggestion from Eugene is also useful. I should be able to use = setsockopt() with IP_PORTRANGE_HIGH if I cared to use the high range = only. I probably don't want to do that in most cases, but it's good to = understand what the differences are. Thanks for the help! - .Dustin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BB69C6A7-40E5-4C9B-B95C-2B1A7BC9DAE6>