🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <154@nrl-cmf.UUCP> wicinski@nrl-cmf.UUCP (Tim Wicinski) writes:
>Dave Platt asked awhile ago why getzones failed with an error of -1096,
>and all i told him was 'yea, it did the same for me."this only happens
>when you use the new port assignments (200 and up)
>
>Bug: getzones failed when using the new NIC port assignments (200 and
>up), but would work fine otherwise. 
>
>Fix: lib/kip/abkip.c incorrectly defined the service "at-kip" and
>"at-kis". the simple fix is below:
>
Change 
>!   WKS_entry("at-zis",zipZIS),
To
>!   WKS_entry("at-zip",zipZIS),
Or not?

A colleague of mine had the same problem resently. We both had installed
KIP & CAP on our systems, but getzones failed only on his.
We both used the new ddprange. The only difference was that
I got the names from the CAP documentation and he from the kip documentation.

After carefully rereading both 'KIP Installation instructions' [K] and 
'CAP installation procedure'[C] we found the following:

[C, page 1, bottom line] 
    ... "at-nbp", "at-rtmp", "at-echo", "at-zis". ....
					      ^
[K,section DDP START RANGE] 
  In April, 1988, the NIC assigned a range of ports for using by KIP for
  "static" or "well known" assignments. In particular it assigned:
  201 - AT-RMTP
  ....
  206 - AT-ZIS
  ....       ^

[K, 15 lines down]
Following are the entries for /etc/services
	....
	at-zip		206/udp			# udp: zip
	     ^
It seemed to me that the last one is a typo.
But is there someone who knows[NIC?] and can tell whether to apply
the patch (as Tim suggested) or change the /etc/services entry (as I did)?







____________________________________________________________________________
Casper H.S. Dik
University of Amsterdam     |		      dik@uva.uucp
The Netherlands             |                 ...!uunet!mcvax!uva!dik