please read to the bottom before commenting on stuff in the middle. -- Chris H.
Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Chris Hoogendyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [snip] > > >> I passed an earlier message from this thread along to my network expert, >> because we have had some complaints about recent HP stuff. I'm only >> casually up on that stuff. >> >> I was surprised by his answer, but not by his depth of knowledge. So, >> I'm passing it along just so you all have it. Please note that lprng and >> cups are two of the most widely used printing systems. Mac OS X uses >> cups, and lprng is frequently recommended as a replacement system for >> people in linux/unix environments who want some added capability. >> >> >> > Chris, I would hope someone would point out to the list that ONLY ports < >> 1024 historically >> > are "well known ports", and those < 4096 are sort of registered. >> > > His information is dated. "Historically" we only use 2 digits for the year > as well ... > > >> > So far as I am aware there is >> > no binding registration for ports > 4096. But far worse is the fact that >> not just HP printers >> > use port 9100. So do almost all printers which use the idea of a >> "service port", and this is >> > supported by default in lprng and in cups. >> > > His facts are wrong here. IPP (i.e. CUPS) uses port 631 and lpd/lpr uses 515. > dated is one thing. wrong is another. if historical equipment is on the network, you have to deal with it. if current protocols recognize that history, you have to deal with it. you are correct about IPP and LPD, but you missed PDL-datastream, which is 9100. I almost never find his [my network expert] facts to be wrong. check out: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~rakerman/port-table.html#printing , and you will find also that Apple Mac OS X Rendezvous Printing will use port 9100. So there is a discovery process that goes on here and not just listening. That might constitute "poking" or "probing" to someone who is using the port for some other reason and not expecting this. > Those 910x ports are registered to Bacula officially. There are no "internet > police" and there's no fine or anything that means that the Jetdirect systems > are doing anything "illegal", but it's _only_ jetdirect cards that use those > ports outside of the IANA registration. > > Facts: > *) Bacula is registered with IANA to use the 910x ports. It's "official" > *) _only_ jetdirect cards use the 910x ports. CUPS and LPD do not. If they > are, it's because you're using some sort of CUPS->jetdirect driver (which > is actually pretty common) but it's not CUPS, it's the jetdirect driver. > Ryan Novosielski pointed out RFC 2782 where this is defined under the protocol name "pdl-datastream" and listed in the IANA port list: http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers. Now, you say 910x, but we were talking about 9100. Following down from 9100 on the IANA port list, you will find 9101, 9102, and 9103 registered to bacula. >> > If bacula is on port 9100 that is a totally bad idea. >> > > Well, he's welcome to his opinion, but he doesn't seem to have any facts to > back it up. > see above. >> > Bacula ought to have gotten a port registered by IANA in the reserved >> range rather than just >> > grabbing ports that have long been in use for printing. >> > > Again, he's working off 10-year old data here. The ports _are_ registered, > the > registered port range has been expanded in recent years because there's no > room left for new applications below 1024. > as we see, 9100 is listed as pdl-datastream. I went back and reviewed this thread, because I realized there was some confusion, and I wanted to know exactly what the original problem was. Turns out a good deal of confusion. Kern's message was the first reference to HP printers, in which he said to watch out for them, and referenced ports 9001, 9002, 9003. He meant 9101, 9102, 9103. My network expert saw the reference to HP printers and the 9000 range and replied back about the 9100 port (assuming, if there was a conflict, bacula must be using that port). As far as I can tell, that was the first reference specifically to 9100. Subsequent replies to his comments referred to 910x for bacula, but still reacted to his comment about 9100. I apologize for forwarded those comments without first checking out precisely which port numbers were in question and adding clarifying language regarding assumptions. I think Ryan's comments have been most useful and informative. As far as I can tell, no one is reporting currently having problems traceable to these printer related questions. I don't see any point in pursuing further discussion unless someone has some actual current data specifically relating to conflicting traffic on ports 9101, 9102 or 9103 (bacula does not use 9100). (I just read Kern's latest reply which clarifies some of the same stuff I've mentioned above). --------------- Chris Hoogendyk - O__ ---- Systems Administrator c/ /'_ --- Biology & Geology Departments (*) \(*) -- 140 Morrill Science Center ~~~~~~~~~~ - University of Massachusetts, Amherst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------- Erdös 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
