Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector?
From: Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:41:53 -0500
Guy Harris wrote:
On Dec 15, 2010, at 8:26 PM, Chris Maynard wrote:Guy Harris <guy@...> writes:SHOULD in some RFC - or even a MUST - but I don't know offhand what RFC that is)http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119Sorry, I didn't make it clear that "what RFC that is" is "what RFC - if any - says that ephemeral ports should be handed out by default", not "what RFC explains what SHOULD and MUST mean". *Is* there an RFC that describes well-known, registered, and ephemeral ports? The first two of them are mentioned in the IANA port number assignment list: http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers but that doesn't mention ephemeral ports.
There's been a lot of discussion about port assignment/registration on the IETF tsvwg mailing list of late. There's a draft floating around which describes the port number ranges in section 6: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09#section-6 and then goes on to say, in section 8.1.1:
o Ports in the Dynamic Ports range (49152-65535) have been specifically set aside for local and dynamic use and cannot be assigned through IANA. Application software may simply use any dynamic port that is available on the local host, without any sort of assignment. On the other hand, application software MUST NOT assume that a specific port number in the Dynamic Ports range will always be available for communication at all times, and a port number in that range hence MUST NOT be used as a service identifier.
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector?, (continued)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Stephen Fisher (Dec 15)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Stephen Fisher (Dec 15)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Christopher Maynard (Dec 15)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Jeff Morriss (Dec 15)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Dirk Jagdmann (Dec 15)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Stephen Fisher (Dec 16)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Guy Harris (Dec 15)
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Chris Maynard (Dec 15)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Guy Harris (Dec 15)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Dirk Jagdmann (Dec 15)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Jeff Morriss (Dec 16)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Stephen Fisher (Dec 15)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Stephen Fisher (Dec 15)
- Re: How to avoid dissection based on port defined by a different dissector? Stephen Fisher (Dec 16)