Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:11:39 -0700 From: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> To: Dominic Mitchell <Dom.Mitchell@palmerharvey.co.uk> Cc: Josef Karthauser <joe@pavilion.net>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services Message-ID: <37A0A76B.F09E9AF1@gorean.org> References: <xzpu2qrad76.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9907281735570.15263-100000@dt011n65.san.rr.com> <19990729090420.A98489@pavilion.net> <19990729110131.A50938@voodoo.pandhm.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dominic Mitchell wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 09:04:20AM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote: > > A question that always baffled me (I'm fairly easy to baffle) is why we've > > got some numbers defined as both udp and tcp when the service type is only > > one or the other. Does anyone know? > > Probably because the IANA specifies them that way. I think that they > try to keep both UDP and TCP ports the same, "just in case". There > might be a better explanation in rfc1700 (assigned numbers) Nope, that is the official reason. Cheesy-poofs for you. :) Doug 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?37A0A76B.F09E9AF1>