From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Apr 3 14:11: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.cc (gw.nectar.cc [208.42.49.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7960737B41F for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:10:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from madman.nectar.cc (madman.nectar.cc [10.0.1.111]) by gw.nectar.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP id D460238; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:10:56 -0600 (CST) Received: (from nectar@localhost) by madman.nectar.cc (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g33MAuA93959; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:10:56 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from nectar) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:10:56 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Mike Silbersack Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes Message-ID: <20020403221056.GB89405@madman.nectar.cc> References: <20020403214840.GA89405@madman.nectar.cc> <20020403215741.L59420-100000@patrocles.silby.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020403215741.L59420-100000@patrocles.silby.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Url: http://www.nectar.cc/ Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:00:27PM -0600, Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > > Please do not change this setting in -STABLE. Was this discussed > > elsewhere? > > > > I am strongly against a change that would cause existing machines to > > suddenly start using a different port range during a -STABLE upgrade. > > > Yes, I asked on -net. All I heard was that other OSes have already made > the switch, nothing negative. I don't disagree with the change itself. I actually very often twiddle the port range for specific applications using the IP_PORTRANGE socket option, or for an entire system using the net.inet.ip.portrange sysctls. > If this really is going to cause problems, > it's better that we find out now rather than wait until 4.6-release. (I > don't believe it will cause problems, in any case.) I disagree. Some people running -STABLE will be behind firewalls which they don't administrate. After updating one day [1], they may suddenly have network applications failing in strange ways. For some people, it will be very hard to track down the problem. Why do you feel you must change this in the -STABLE branch? What benefit is it to the users of -STABLE? I don't object outright to merging the change during 4.6-RELEASE code slush, although I think that it is a gratuitous change for a minor release bump. Cheers, -- Jacques A. Vidrine http://www.nectar.cc/ NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal Kerberos jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@FreeBSD.org . nectar@kth.se [1] Yes, I know they are supposed to read UPDATING. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message