Subject: From: Date:

Re: [ECS] web interface and firewalls Ingo Pakleppa Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:53:54 -0700

---

Port 80 may not be enough... Many businesses actually check for the 
protocol rather than the port number (for instance, anybody who uses 
Microsoft Proxy Server, or any other proxy server). Thus my suggestion of 
using http (and, for that matter, a proxy-aware implementation of http). 
There sometimes is a way around this, known as the SOCKS protocol. Doesn't 
help much because ECS would still have to be SOCKS aware.

Ingo

At 03:11 PM 6/29/00 -0500, Scott Danks wrote:
>Actually, a lot of businesses are only opening up port 80 for us peaons, 
>and that would allow me to access stuff from work, which is what I'm 
>planning someday real soon.  I would vote for the user changeable port 
>number if it's not too much trouble. . . .
>
> >>> Ingo Pakleppa <ipakleppa@home.com> 06/29 2:13 PM >>>
>Any port above 1024 is unreserved and can be used by anybody and everybody
>without registration. So conflicts are bound to happen at pretty much any
>port setting.
>
>Since several people mentioned firewall issues, maybe a better solution
>would be to re-engineer the protocol and use a standard one, such as HTTP,
>as the transport mechanism? I know, it's a lot more work.
>
>Ingo
>
>At 09:13 PM 6/27/00 -0400, sljd@onenet.org wrote:
> >Port 3000 is widely used by Centrinity Inc (software developer) in the
> >educational and business markets. At the point where we would try to
> >use the web interface I would consider requesting ECS be able use an
> >alternate port (perhaps user selectable). I doubt it would involve much
> >time to do so.
> >Scott
> >"Dan Hoehnen" <dhoehnen@infinet.com> writes:
> > >I'm just wondering if anyone is using the ECS web interface through a
> > >firewall.  I think ECS defaults to port 3000, which I think may be a
> > >problem
> > >since it is not a "well known" port.  I have not tried it yet.  I just
> > >want
> > >to see if it's possible before I possibly beat my head against the wall
> > >for
> > >too long.
> >
> > >If you are using it through a firewall, did you have to do anything
> > >special?

---