Re: s...port's - problem

From: Fabrizio <fabrizio.magni_at_mycontinent.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:12:09 GMT
Message-ID: <ZvBwe.15839$h5.806566@news3.tin.it>

Frank van Bortel wrote:

> Frank van Bortel wrote:
> 
> 

>>
>>Well, it is on Linux, as just seen!
>>And let's not use the redirect bit - Okay? I feel it is not
>>redirection, it's a new process, spawned from the server
>>(initiated by the listener), that starts the communication
>>on a redirected port#; the *initial* negotiation is always
>>on the listener port - both sides!
>>The client process gets a (random, but increasing per connection)
>>port number assigned from the spawned server side process.
>>No different if the client is Linux, or on the same machine, or
>>from another.
>>All assuming dedicated processes, of course.
>>
>>I will now go and enjoy a beer in the sunset; be back tomorrow.
>>Cheers - I enjoy this discussion, Fabrizio, no pun taken so far!

> 
> 
> Right - had my beer last night (two, actually), reread this
> and see I use redirect in the very same sentence!
> 
> It's not redirected, it's a new process started, communicating
> on another port. As written in the documentation.

Well, probably redirection is an improper term to use... but it is graphical and often used by the documentation (metalink notes are full of "port redirection").

Of course we can agree on a better term. :)

-- 
Fabrizio Magni

fabrizio.magni_at_mycontinent.com

replace mycontinent with europe

Received on Wed Jun 29 2005 - 13:12:09 CDT