Subject: RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-05.txt to Proposed Standar d [I06-051127-0011]

From: "Rob Enns" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:15:43 -0800

> The current  practice with CLI, HTML, and SMI based network management
> protocols is to use privileged port numbers.  Why is NETCONF 
> different?

My 2 cents: it's different because it's new, and the world has
changed since the time SNMP, TELNET, and SSH ports were assigned. 
With cheap powerful networked computers available to anyone (vs. the
days 
when multiuser networked machines were run by druids and locked 
in a machine room) the distinction between <1024 and >1024 is 
gone. Anyone can stick a computer on a network and open a port <1024.

So why burn a scarce port number when a non-scarce one is just as good?

(or, I agree with Ira)

Rob

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:43:29 -0800

> So why burn a scarce port number when a non-scarce one is just as good?

By this logic, port numbers < 1024 aren't scarce anymore because there's
no reason to assign them anymore.   I agree with Eliot on his point
that configuration is a privileged activity, so saving the scarce port
numbers for something better isn't that compelling.

Early on, we decided that BEEP was going to be our mandatory-to-implement
transport because it has some perceived technical advantages (by some WG
members) over the other choices.  We ended up asking the NANOG list. 
The answer there, in no uncertain terms, was "change as few things at
once as possible, not as many things as possible".  So we have SSH as the
mandatory transport.

I am concerned that we are making the same sort of decision for 
operators here,
and we will be told later this is an unwanted change.

> Rob

Andy