Re: The X.400 port in "assigned numbers"

Article View: comp.protocols.iso.x400

Article #570

Back to comp.protocols.iso.x400 Previous Next

#570

From: vcerf
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 1990 01:29

10 lines
761 bytes

Jon,

didn't we run into a similar situation on the ARPANET when we
assigned links 155-158 for IP even though,in the end, we only
dedicated 155 for the operational traffic?

If the ports have not been reassigned, perhaps it is not a big
deal to assign one additional one, again?

Vint

Technical Details

Message-ID: <9012112016.aa13634@NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: vcerf@NRI.Reston.VA.US
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: The X.400 port in "assigned numbers"
Message-ID: <9012112016.aa13634@NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US>
Date: 12 Dec 90 01:29:30 GMT
Lines: 10
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 10 Dec 90 21:55:42 +0100.
             <2188*harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no>