Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:09:25 -0600 From: Sean Kelly <smkelly@zombie.org> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org> Cc: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes Message-ID: <20020404070925.GA37764@edgemaster.zombie.org> In-Reply-To: <20020403221056.GB89405@madman.nectar.cc> References: <20020403214840.GA89405@madman.nectar.cc> <20020403215741.L59420-100000@patrocles.silby.com> <20020403221056.GB89405@madman.nectar.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 04:10:56PM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: ... > I don't disagree with the change itself. I actually very often > twiddle the port range for specific applications using the > IP_PORTRANGE socket option, or for an entire system using the > net.inet.ip.portrange sysctls. As do I and several other people I know. In fact, I make the exact change using sysctl that he is proposing to make the default. > > If this really is going to cause problems, > > it's better that we find out now rather than wait until 4.6-release. (I > > don't believe it will cause problems, in any case.) > > I disagree. Some people running -STABLE will be behind firewalls > which they don't administrate. After updating one day [1], they may > suddenly have network applications failing in strange ways. For some > people, it will be very hard to track down the problem. As was stated, the portrange change is being made to *comply* with RFCs. It seems to me that this would be more advantageous than our current port range when dealing with foreignly-controlled firewalls. It is more standard. Anybody who has network problems can read the message in UPDATING telling them what could possibly be causing the problem. This is not being suggested as a commit to RELENG_4, not RELENG_4_5. If we can MFC ATA code from -CURRENT, i see no reason why we can't have a simple portrange change. > Why do you feel you must change this in the -STABLE branch? What > benefit is it to the users of -STABLE? It makes FreeBSD more standard in its use of port ranges. > I don't object outright to merging the change during 4.6-RELEASE code > slush, although I think that it is a gratuitous change for a minor > release bump. Huh? Are you saying you object now, but not at release crunch time? That doesn't make sense, if that is what you mean. -- Sean Kelly | PGP KeyID: 77042C7B smkelly@zombie.org | http://www.zombie.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020404070925.GA37764>