[nanomsg] Re: RFC links
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 07:15:57 +0200
On 14/08/13 22:08, Paul Colomiets wrote:
Isn't the good way to solve the problem is to declare that your
service requires ports 5550-5650? One may declare that port 5555 used
for requests 5556 for heartbeats and 5557-5650 are reserved for future
use.
That's like asking for a carte blanche: "Please open these 100 ports for
me. I don't know what I'll use them for yet, but they may come handy in
the future." Not sure it's much different from opening a TCPMUX port.
Btw, for the sake of discussion, the guys at IETF pointed me to this
document:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-touch-tcp-portnames-00.txt
Martin
Other related posts:
