[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: netstat inet.c inetprint()
- To: tech_(_at_)_OpenBSD_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: netstat inet.c inetprint()
- From: Fabian Kroenner <list-openbsd_(_dot_)_tech_(_at_)_spoiled_(_dot_)_org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 19:07:34 +0000 (UTC)
- Distribution: local
- Organization: spoiled dot org
- Reply-to: Fabian Kroenner <fk_(_at_)_spoiled_(_dot_)_org>
Theo de Raadt <deraadt_(_at_)_cvs_(_dot_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org> wrote:
> Damn rights. That is because someone (IANA or the protocol auther)
> was stupid enough to go and allocate their port within the reserved
> dynamic allocation range.
> This is their fault. The kernel has support to block some out
> using the following:
Agreed! It's their fault, but I believe that having netstat look for
a matching rpc service before relying on a static service table is
an advantage. This way the netstat user is also able to syntactically
distinguish between names obtained through getrpcportnam() vs.
Are there other reasons - reserved for sticking to an established
output format - not to modify netstat's behavior?
> % sysctl -a | grep baddynamic
> net.inet.tcp.baddynamic = 587,749,750,751,760,761,871
> net.inet.udp.baddynamic = 587,749
Thanks for the pointer!
gruss... / regards...
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Benjamin Franklin