From: user-ce4a2c883f75@xymon.invalid (Henrik Stoerner)
Reply-To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
Subject: Re: [hobbit] Requesting a common encrypted port number for hobbit
client/server
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:47:57 +0200
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 08:40:38AM -0500, T.J. Yang wrote:
Just and idea, port 1984 over the years got recognized by some kind of
Internet organization as default port for bb client/server communication
port.
Should we (hobbit community) pursue a common port number for hobbit
client/server encrypted communication ?
I don't think this is necessary, and I'm not even sure such an
application will be accepted.
The current trend for protocols that operate with both plain-text
and encrypted traffic is to start with an un-encrypted connection, and
then use a "STARTTLS" command to turn on encryption. The two sides can
then negotiate if they can/will communicate.
Since this appears to be the method preferred by the Internet
authorities, that's the one I've though about implementing. That
shouldn't stop you from using stunnel, though.
If hb encryption via stunnel is implemented then a port for plaintext
redirection is needed.
thus the idea of requesting non-taken port( from iana) for hobbit encrypted
message.
For my understanding, BB Pro can do message encryption already and looks
like they
are using port 1984 also.
What is the impact of mixing bb encrypted message and hb encrypted message
protocols on same port number ? and I don't believe Quest publish the bb
message encryption protocol.
I think getting a port for hobbit itself is still good in the long run.
I see the need but don't how to get this done.
which port number to use ? who(which entity) to ask ?
It's handled by IANA, You request it through
http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl
Regards,
Henrik
Learn.Laugh.Share. Reallivemoms is right place!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us