Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:10:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> To: Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9907301505250.7396-100000@dt011n65.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907291633170.74639-100000@penelope.skunk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Ben Rosengart wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Josef Karthauser wrote:
>
> > Ok - but it's a bit misleading having both values in /etc/services..
> >
> > Shouldn't be:
> > http 80/tcp www www-http #World Wide Web HTTP
> > http 80/udp www www-http #World Wide Web HTTP
> >
> > Should be:
> > http 80/tcp www www-http #World Wide Web HTTP
> > http 80/udp #[not used]
> >
> > Don't you think? At least that way you don't have to read all of the
> > rfcs to construct a firewall ;).
>
> And the output of netstat (trafshow, etc.) would be considerably easier to
> read.
The -n option to trafshow disables number->name translation for
both addresses and ports, although that might be more than what is wanted.
I do know what you mean though. On some of the machines I administer I
have some custom entries for /etc/services that make more sense than the
defaults, especially for the ports > 1023.
Doug
--
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only
nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter
what it does.
-- Will Rogers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9907301505250.7396-100000>