nanog mailing list archives
Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]]
From: Doug Barton <DougB () DougBarton net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:24:31 -0800 (PST)
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, E.B. Dreger wrote:
BB> Recent versions of un*x BIND will pick a random port above BB> 1024 for udp conversations. It can and has picked 1434. Standard socket(2) behavior. BIND [hopefully] runs chown(2)ed, so the source port number must be >= 1024.
At startup, named bind(2)'s a UDP port to send queries from, and get the answers back on. In the absence of a query-source option that specifies otherwise, this will be a random ephemeral port, however that's defined on the system. TCP queries follow "standard" behavior, binding a random ephemeral port for each query. Pardon the pedantry, but since this is an often misundertood topic, I thought it might help to lay out the facts. HTH, Doug -- "The last time France wanted more evidence, it rolled right through Paris with a German flag." - David Letterman
Current thread:
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Joshua Smith (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] David Barak (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Kevin Oberman (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Johannes Ullrich (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Kevin Oberman (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Kevin Oberman (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] David Barak (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Bryan Bradsby (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] E.B. Dreger (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Doug Barton (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] alex (Feb 22)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] E.B. Dreger (Feb 21)