×

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.



  1.  Home
  2. MIDRANGE-L
  3. May 2019

Re: Why adulterate ports vs using an additional IP address? Was: Ports IP specific?

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:36 AM Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I differ on the definition of "a lot easier" for number 1. ADDTCPIFC and STRTCPIFC do not seem like "a lot" to me.

As a developer, I can start a server program (for testing) using any
unused port higher than 1024. I don't need any special authorities. I
also don't have to get an IP address assigned.

I don't really understand 2. Not arguing with it, I just don't understand it.

In order to bind to a port from 1-1024 you need to have special
authority. In the unix world, that's restricted to root. I'm not sure
what authorities are needed on IBM i.

david


This thread ...
Follow-Ups:
Replies:
Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.