|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Private port numbers?
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Crist Clark wrote: > > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > > > Be damned if you filter, be damned if you don't. Nice choice. > > > > I think it's time that we set aside a range of port numbers for private > > use. That makes all those services that have no business escaping out > > in the open extremely easy to filter, while at the same time not > > impacting any legitimate users. > > Cool. So if you use private ports, you'll be totally protected from the > Internet nasties (and the Internet protected from your broken or malicious > traffic) in the same way RFC1918 addressing does the exact same thing now > at the network layer. what about ports that start as 'private' and are eventually ubiquitously used on a public network? (Sean Donelan noted that 137->139 were originally intended to be used in private networks... and they became 'public' over time)
|