From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Oct 28 17:10:40 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0BEE16A4CF
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:10:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.speedroad.net (vmtrance.isd.no [195.139.232.51])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55BB543F75
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:10:38 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from arnvid@karstad.org)
Received: (qmail 14992 invoked by uid 89); 22 Oct 2003 08:43:47 -0000
Message-ID: <20031022084347.14991.qmail@mail.speedroad.net>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031014211213.48934A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
            <20031021202618.GE1668@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
            <3F963221.F3CB296E@mindspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F963221.F3CB296E@mindspring.com>
From: "arnvid" <arnvid@karstad.org>
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:43:47 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>
cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ethercons: ethernet console driver for 5-current
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:10:40 -0000

Terry Lambert writes:
>> If Linux is using 0x0666, we should probably pick a different number
>> since we're not wire compatible.  Though coming up with a common
>> protocol would be even better.
> 0x666 hex is 1638 decimal, and it's taken: 
> 
> cnip            1638/tcp  CableNet Info Protocol
> cnip            1638/udp  CableNet Info Protocol 
> 
> Basically, this is just an experimental protocol that's being played
> with here, and if it ever becomes real, then it will need an IANA
> protocol number assignment before it's widely deployed.

Sure you're not mistaking tcp port numbers for ip protocol numbers now? ;) 

 - arnvid -