*BSD News Article 49698


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!caen!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!matlock.mindspring.com!usenet
From: Robert Sanders <rsanders@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: /etc/services
Date: 24 Aug 1995 11:21:24 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
Lines: 15
Sender: rsanders@hrothgar.mindspring.com
Message-ID: <87spmr8gzv.fsf@hrothgar.mindspring.com>
References: <41gtu9$knu@news.bu.edu> <87virn9aoy.fsf@hrothgar.mindspring.com>
	<41htce$91l@news.bu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hrothgar.mindspring.com
In-reply-to: mi@cs.bu.edu's message of 24 Aug 1995 13:04:13 GMT
X-Newsreader: (ding) Gnus v0.99.11

On 24 Aug 1995 13:04:13 GMT, mi@cs.bu.edu (Mikhail Teterin) said:

> Aga, that explains the current behavior, but does not seem reasonable...
> Why can not same service sit and wait for few ports? Seems like a design
> problem to me...

Define "service".  Telnet can sit and wait on as many ports as you
wish, you just have to give it as many names.  Name them something
like telnet-23, telnet-4355, ..., telnet-X.  I'll agree that it isn't
convenient to have to modify *two* files to do that, but there's no
real loss of functionality.  Well, except for the "internal" services,
but there's not much need to put those on alternate ports.

Regards,
  -- Robert