North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: ISPs are asked to block yet another port

  • From: Edward Lewis
  • Date: Mon Jun 23 09:19:44 2003 
At 2:58 -0400 6/23/03, Jeff Kell wrote:

And as was noted earlier, unconditionally blocking udp/1026 will cause
a lot of collateral damage when udp/1026 outbound is used as an ephemeral port
for a legitimate UDP-based service (DNS, NTP, etc).

Jeff
It's been a long time since I did any substantial BSD-socket coding, but, back in the day, when you asked for socket 0 in a bind call, the OS would just pick one. The first (unused) one chosen would be 1024, then incrementally pick the next up to some limit where it would then circle around. Most clients (incl. DNS resolvers) would ask for port 0, so, well, y'all can predict the result if you were to filter any of the "user space" ports.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

...as graceful as a blindfolded bull in a china shop...