Re: [7] [Libbt-devel] added header files that will be installed

[Peter S. <stu...@cd...>]

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:35:31PM -0800, Kevin Smathers wrote:
> Peter Stuge wrote:
> >
> >No, listenport is not required, if we're going to do the networking
> >in libbt I strongly suggest that we only use a single port per
> >application, and by default one in the dynamic port range as defined
> >by IANA, 49152 through 65536. Start from the bottom and try
> >allocating upwards.
> 
> People who operate firewalls generally prefer to know what it is
> that they are opening up a hole for.

We know that we can't tell anything about the traffic we're opening
holes for unless we actually inspect it. A simple stateful packet
filter will not and can not know what the application is doing and
assuming that a certain port only carries certain traffic is silly.


> Follow the protocol spec, use the specified port range.

I prefer to follow IANA and use a non-reserved port.

Plus;

> >And most importantly a dynamic port fits the application. This is
> >not a server that peers will try to connect blindly to as a result
> >of a user command, instead peer lists come from the tracker and so
> >ports do not matter.
> 
> Bram has a lot of experience with actual deployments.  Pretend that
> he knows what he is doing.

You can't seriously mean that arbitrary allocation of ports in the
IANA reserved range by individual software manufacturers is a good
thing?  Further, someone mentioned a post by Bram in which he
recognized that this particular part of the protocol documentation
was unfortunate. It's a non-issue AFAICS, since all clients always
tell the tracker which port they're using.

As for firewalls, that's another issue, I think the best solution
would be for Bram to get a port allocated by IANA and then all BT
software could use that as the default. Until then, nothing we do
in libbt will be of much help for firewall operators..

Plus; users should be able to pick the port if they want.


//Peter