6 ms·

Developers trying out their web servers should probably add another zero for port 50000 and now they'd suddenly get an IANA compliant one. I'm not sure how thi

by jug 5y ago

Developers trying out their web servers should probably add another zero for port 50000 and now they'd suddenly get an IANA compliant one. I'm not sure how this came to be to be honest. This is a very old system, but yet we still abuse the four digit range with private use ports. I mean, it's often just one digit away. Even as defaults in software packages where their developers should at least know better even if a random web developer might not.

stefan_ 5y ago
Or we stop pretending this IANA document means anything and make software that is shipped on millions of computers by default use port numbers that don't take away from what humans prefer to use?
- zinekeller 5y ago
  Like, how Linux DEs change their standard APIs so often that unless you've targeted X, it sucks? There are reason for having sensible standards. You can say something bad about Windows, but the paramount stabilty (despite their multiple changes in theming) is very appreciated, thank you.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >Like, how Linux DEs change their standard APIs so often that unless you've targeted X, it sucks? AFAIK that's mostly a GNOME issue, so despite it wrongly, IMO, being the default and the most popular DE of the Linux distros for some reason, I wouldn't throw mud on the whole Linux DE ecosystem because of it alone. KDE, LXQT, LXDE and XFCE seem to have their shit together for the most part.
    - zinekeller 5y ago
      KDE ain't too, unfortunately, and really unrelated to Qt. I'm using Plasma right now, but that transition was rough, and unrelated to it's refresh.
      - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        Would you mind detailing why you think KDE isn't? I'm no fanboy and have no dog in this DE fight, just curious.
        zinekeller 5y ago
        If you wrote without KDE dependencies and your distro did include the correct Qt version, there's no problems at all (apart from edge-case bugs). But KDE3 to KDE4 and KDE4 to KDE5 (Plasma) was associated with a whole change, similar to Mozilla's Firefox's "Daylight", "Quantum", and "Australis" and web extensions, and associated behavioural relearings.
        ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        I thought we were talking about the present situation of KDE, not about past history.
  - stefan_ 5y ago
    It's not a standard if it was never adopted. The port assignment document has two practical uses: 1) To cite it in a smart hacker news comment 2) To show alarming text in "security scans" to gullible people Seriously, google "commplex" and all you find is confused home users thinking they got a trojan of sorts. In 2021, it is purely a drain on everyones nerves.
    - smaudet 5y ago
      What about Dns, smtp, http, https, ftp, ssh, sftp, etc.? Pretty sure those are not drains on everybody's nerves. Devs bashing standards cause they don't want to follow the rules which make things work well is a drain on everyone's nerves. But maybe I have misunderstood the document (didn't read). Standards are nice, except when they are mostly geared towards one company. Then yeah, it would be better to have SRV records and discourage default port usage such as Apple is doing. If we could go back in time, forcing an app layer (e.g. an ssh header) over a port might have been helpful, port conflicts might have been less common and you could have even eliminated root only ports. At any rate let's not break the web because some lazy mofo doesn't want to get off their couch.
- cromka 5y ago
  > Or we stop pretending this IANA document Yeah, and while we're at it, let's burn all IETF RFCs. Who needs that?
  - stefan_ 5y ago
    The point is that even the IANA doesn't give a fuck about the port assignment document. It's full of dead entities.
    - zinekeller 5y ago
      That is rather an audacious statement. Company dead != unused. Also, the process is well-defined and guided by an RFC itself, so it's really in IETF's control, just stewarded by IANA.
- josephg 5y ago
  What we should really do / have done is add port numbers to DNS entries. Then IANA wouldn’t need a public registry of port assignments. Everyone can use whatever ports for our public services that we like. Sadly, its almost certainly too late to add port numbers to DNS.
  - detaro 5y ago
    that's exactly what SRV records do. Used for many things, but not HTTP(S)
  - kroltan 5y ago
    Actually, DNS SRV entries do support port numbers (and transport layer!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRV_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRV_record It is just a matter of specifying the use of such entries in the protocols (HTTP et al). A lot of new protocols already rely on them. As someone who doesn't do much infra, I've encountered them when setting up the DNS for a Minecraft server. The game checks for the SRV record, or if it is missing, assumes (or reads from the user) a given port.
    - josephg 5y ago
      Thats cool! Do you know what the rationale is for not adding them to HTTP2 / HTTP3?
      - kroltan 5y ago
        Sorry, absolutely no idea.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by jug 5y ago

stefan_ 5y ago

Or we stop pretending this IANA document means anything and make software that is shipped on millions of computers by default use port numbers that don't take away from what humans prefer to use?

zinekeller 5y ago
Like, how Linux DEs change their standard APIs so often that unless you've targeted X, it sucks? There are reason for having sensible standards. You can say something bad about Windows, but the paramount stabilty (despite their multiple changes in theming) is very appreciated, thank you.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >Like, how Linux DEs change their standard APIs so often that unless you've targeted X, it sucks? AFAIK that's mostly a GNOME issue, so despite it wrongly, IMO, being the default and the most popular DE of the Linux distros for some reason, I wouldn't throw mud on the whole Linux DE ecosystem because of it alone. KDE, LXQT, LXDE and XFCE seem to have their shit together for the most part.
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    KDE ain't too, unfortunately, and really unrelated to Qt. I'm using Plasma right now, but that transition was rough, and unrelated to it's refresh.
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      Would you mind detailing why you think KDE isn't? I'm no fanboy and have no dog in this DE fight, just curious.
      - zinekeller 5y ago
        If you wrote without KDE dependencies and your distro did include the correct Qt version, there's no problems at all (apart from edge-case bugs). But KDE3 to KDE4 and KDE4 to KDE5 (Plasma) was associated with a whole change, similar to Mozilla's Firefox's "Daylight", "Quantum", and "Australis" and web extensions, and associated behavioural relearings.
        ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        I thought we were talking about the present situation of KDE, not about past history.
- stefan_ 5y ago
  It's not a standard if it was never adopted. The port assignment document has two practical uses: 1) To cite it in a smart hacker news comment 2) To show alarming text in "security scans" to gullible people Seriously, google "commplex" and all you find is confused home users thinking they got a trojan of sorts. In 2021, it is purely a drain on everyones nerves.
  - smaudet 5y ago
    What about Dns, smtp, http, https, ftp, ssh, sftp, etc.? Pretty sure those are not drains on everybody's nerves. Devs bashing standards cause they don't want to follow the rules which make things work well is a drain on everyone's nerves. But maybe I have misunderstood the document (didn't read). Standards are nice, except when they are mostly geared towards one company. Then yeah, it would be better to have SRV records and discourage default port usage such as Apple is doing. If we could go back in time, forcing an app layer (e.g. an ssh header) over a port might have been helpful, port conflicts might have been less common and you could have even eliminated root only ports. At any rate let's not break the web because some lazy mofo doesn't want to get off their couch.
cromka 5y ago
> Or we stop pretending this IANA document Yeah, and while we're at it, let's burn all IETF RFCs. Who needs that?
- stefan_ 5y ago
  The point is that even the IANA doesn't give a fuck about the port assignment document. It's full of dead entities.
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    That is rather an audacious statement. Company dead != unused. Also, the process is well-defined and guided by an RFC itself, so it's really in IETF's control, just stewarded by IANA.
josephg 5y ago
What we should really do / have done is add port numbers to DNS entries. Then IANA wouldn’t need a public registry of port assignments. Everyone can use whatever ports for our public services that we like. Sadly, its almost certainly too late to add port numbers to DNS.
- detaro 5y ago
  that's exactly what SRV records do. Used for many things, but not HTTP(S)
- kroltan 5y ago
  Actually, DNS SRV entries do support port numbers (and transport layer!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRV_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRV_record It is just a matter of specifying the use of such entries in the protocols (HTTP et al). A lot of new protocols already rely on them. As someone who doesn't do much infra, I've encountered them when setting up the DNS for a Minecraft server. The game checks for the SRV record, or if it is missing, assumes (or reads from the user) a given port.
  - josephg 5y ago
    Thats cool! Do you know what the rationale is for not adding them to HTTP2 / HTTP3?
    - kroltan 5y ago
      Sorry, absolutely no idea.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]