Ephemeral port range (patch)

Bruce M. Simpson bms at FreeBSD.org
Sun Mar 2 23:49:04 UTC 2008


+1 on increasing the threshold, 1024 is way too low.

Also consider the folk who depend on the existing behaviour: a 
predictable ephemeral port range is useful, if for some reason you need 
to apply a NAT policy to that traffic, with no other knowledge about how 
the applications you must NAT actually behave.

later
BMS


More information about the freebsd-net mailing list