--- Richard van der Hoff <richardv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Francois-Xavier Le Bail wrote:
>
> > Hi List,
> >
> > In version 0.99.6 we have, by example :
> > Source Destination Protocol Info
> > 10.0.0.2 62.210.65.158 TCP 3946 > http [ACK]
> ...
> >
> > In version 0.99.7-SVN-22549 we have :
> > Source Destination Protocol Info
> > 10.0.0.2 62.210.65.158 TCP backupedge > http
> > [ACK] ...
> >
> > The resolution from the new services file from
> IANA is
> > not relevant in such cases with random source
> port.
> > Perhaps this new resolution scheme should be
> optional.
>
> Perhaps it should just be more intelligent, and if
> one port is < 1024 and
> the other isn't, just resolve the one less than
> 1024?
>
> On the other hand that doesn't solve the problem in
> the general case. I
> guess it would be nice to make a decision based on
> where the SYN comes
> from.
Why not the first solution for UDP and the second one
for TCP, even if that does not cover all the cases ?
FXLB
____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
