From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Nelson Subject: Re: [IANA #821110] Application for a Port Number and/or Service Name "ceph" (fwd) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:31:07 -0500 Message-ID: <5541155B.7090609@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47918 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965748AbbD2RbL (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:31:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On 04/29/2015 12:02 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > So, I picked 6789 way back in commit > dc38de9b14c5386f9f446124ca6d6673eb8a1e20 because it was unused according > to nmap-services. It's there now, in use by smc-https (whatever that is), > and says it was registered in 2002. I guess the nmap-services file I > looked at at the time was out of date? > > In any case, if we want an IANA assigned number, we'll need to change it. > > We should be able to make a transition reasonably painless by making > clients try both ports when none is specified for some period. > > I'm assuming it's worth the effort... what do you think? Yes, I think it's worth it. Better now than when we are 10x bigger than right? ;) Mark > > sage >