To:
Ed Sawicki <ed@alcpress.com>
Cc:
Kandra Nygårds <kandra@foxette.net>, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Jim Reid <Jim.Reid@nominum.com>
Date:
Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:27:20 -0800
In-Reply-To:
Message from Ed Sawicki <ed@alcpress.com> of "21 Feb 2003 11:24:28 PST." <1045855468.1155.247.camel@red>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Why one port?
>>>>> "Ed" == Ed Sawicki <ed@alcpress.com> writes:
Ed> I'm not sure if you intended this as humor. If you didn't, why
Ed> was FTP assigned two ports without clients getting confused?
Because one port is used for data transfer and the other for control.
This paradigm is not appropriate to the DNS.
Ed> I never suggested that we need a user-configurable port. We
Ed> need a fixed UDP port for our recursive name servers/caches.
Isn't that what port 53 is for?
>> and you don't have to rewrite the Internet to do it.
Ed> This seems to be a popular theme here. I see it as an exaggeration.
In that case, please explain how you propose to make everything
continue to work with two ports for DNS, one for authoritative service
and one for resolving, and how this could be deployed. For bonus marks,
provide an implementation scheme that does not involve changing
existing software or configurations.
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.