Talk:List of TCP and UDP port numbers/Archive 1

Cleanup Notice
Anyone have any idea why there is a cleanup notice placed on this? DStaal 13:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's messy, inconsistent and currently up for deletion. I think a clean-up is in order.
 * Somethings that I have been planning to do when I have time: Create a new colour scheme (official; un-official; official + conflict; un-official + conflict,) consistently apply the colour scheme, ensure the Well Known Ports (as per ) are correct, correct|expand|reword descriptions (especially for the Well Known Ports,) append official, etc., to each port (though this may not be necessary if there are distinct colours for each type).
 * In addition, perhaps we should create a guideline as to the un-official ports to add/keep. Something along the lines of WP:NOTE? sendai 02:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I notice there is another proposal to merge this page with Port_numbers. I much prefer this list to that one, to start. If there is a merge, I'd say throw out Port_numbers and redirect to this page. That said; is there a current rationale behind both pages? This one has evolved into a list of often-used ports, with links to what they are used for. Is there a (seperate) reason for that page? If they are merged, where should the page be located? DStaal 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest a rename to "TCP and UDP port numbers" or some such name modified to match Wikipedia standards. "Well known" has caused too much back and forth, and "port numbers" is too generic.  Hopefully with a merge this endless split and unsplit can be stopped.  Rakerman 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The only other names I can come up with are "IP port numbers" or "Internet port numbers", neither of which is very good.  (And the only thing I have against "TCP and UDP port numbers" is the length.)  A good name, with good redirects, should help.  I'll wait a while for any more comments, then do the move.  DStaal 15:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. DStaal 22:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I seriously object to the use of the phrase "well known ports" in an informal sense. "Well known" as in "well known ports" has a very specific technical meaning, namely: agreed upon, or: universal across different hosts. That is, a well known port number is a port number that I may try to connect to despite the fact that I know (next to) nothing about some server, since it is _agreed_ _upon_ that hosts run protocol FOO on it.

Thus, it makes absolutely no sense to remove port numbers because they are "not widely known." 213.84.239.37 23:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above poster. First, decide the purpose of this page.  If this page adds no value over the IANA official list, then this page has no purpose.  I propose as follows: 1) This page should link to Wikipedia descriptions of protocols whenever possible / available.  2) Stop confusing "well known" with "I have heard about".  ANY entry is valid IF you can point to a reference document about the protocol.  If you just post jhgjhg protocol with no info about what the protocol IS, it is useless.  Stop splitting and unsplitting this page.  In my opinion, the port numbers page has zero value added.  I could copy the IANA list and get basically the same result.  The whole point of this page is to add value to the very thin, basic, unlinked info that IANA provides.  Work together to build the best list, don't split off to create a competing list if you disagree.  Rakerman 18:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

--- I see where this page wants to go (an index linking to wikipedia entries about those protocols, RIGHT?) even so, it might be wiser to use the official IANA document as a starting point instead?


 * That sounds like a good idea. I think wikipedia should have a higher standard for "well known" than both the current source and IANA.  I'd say (as a rule of thumb) that if a program/service already has an entry in wikipedia, then its port deserves to be on this list.  Naturally there will be exceptions where a decent article has yet to be written.  Stuff like tcp/348, udp/409, tcp/645 etc. will surely never warrant an article, so I'd say they don't warrant mentioning here (that's why it's "well known ports" not "comprehensive list of arcane ports that no-one ever uses"). Comments? -- Finlay McWalter 20:26, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Note that lists and directories aren't usually considered copyright violations (even if this hadn't been published by iana first)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights

Nice work, folks, on the improvements. I am, however, going to rework the intro (being "well known" and "privileged" aren't the same), weaken and clarify the privilege part (technically you don't have to be root on most modern unixes that support ACLs) and remove the "wikify this" commentary (which should go in this talk page, not the article). I also think we _shouldn't_ split the >1023 ports to a separate article (I hope this article won't get too long). And I intend to put an exlink into one of the "comprehensive" port lists on the web - IANA only specifies the "official" ones, and there's lots of unofficial uses, not least for trojans, backdoors, viruses etc. We don't need to list 'em, but we should link offsite to someone who does. -- Finlay McWalter 14:17, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, like, *do so* then. :-) Everyone else should just edit the page as they see fit before then though.

Note that "Well Known Ports" appears to actually be a specific term meaning the first set of 1023 ports which the IANA looks after. So yes, ports that are merely registered should be elsewhere. See also: Port_number

Hmm, note that some of the remarks on the page itself are there to prevent it from immediately getting killed by rampant deletionism. See the page history: It actually got Copyvioed, deleted, re-instated, wiped down to a stub and finally went back to being useful. All that, and people hadn't even taken time to consider what the page was, let alone read the talk page. Quite incredible.

So anyone taking the time to read this page: a list of IANA port numbers is not a copyvio, organises several wikipedia articles according to a certain official numbering, which is in very common usage, and in general yes it IS useful. So don't delete again. Okay? Thanks. (Having said that probably the page will go through another iteration again since people don't bother to read the talk ;-), but let's see


 * I wiped it down to a stub because it was a source text that didn't constitute an encyclopedia article and that was available from the definitive source. It's also fine how it is now, but I think my reason for hacking it down was sound. OK? Onebyone 23:44, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

modifications
I think it is needlessly confusing to people to mix in unregistered ports with IANA-registered ports. Since the description is all about IANA ports, I removed the unregistered ports and added information that IANA cannot and does not enforce the use of particular ports. Richard Akerman 05-November-2004
 * Use four tildes for a name/date timestamp ( ~ ). I wondered what happened to the VNC ports I added.  Needless to say, you've cut out a lot of useful information, and I'd appreciate it if it were moved somewhere else (perhaps the content of this article could be moved to List of IANA-registered ports.)  --Ardonik.talk* 11:08, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, not a lot. But a full list of ports should still go somewhere.  How about making a table in this file, with a column indicating whether the port had been registered with the IANA? --Ardonik.talk* 11:11, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I will add a section that says "unregistered ports". Rakerman 21:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is the IANA list link added:- G Evans

There was a link to an Internet page in the main body of the list - I think for Wikipedia purposes the list should link only to other Wikipedia articles. Useful Internet resources can be linked at the bottom of the page. Rakerman 18:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion
I don't see the point in using CONFLICT each time one add a port that's already registered in IANA's port-list. The list would be more useful to people if we just list some of the standard ports < 1024, and then start on another section where we add ports that we know of from servers/malware/games etc, wouldn't it? :)

Added a second page instead
Instead of editing this page, I added a new one called Port numbers, since ports added here should somehow relate to the topic "well-known ports". The page I added is meant to become a resource where people can find a certain service/trojan listening to a certain port.

Does anyone care what ports are registered?
In my opinion, if this is going to be authoritative, it should distinguish between common usage and actually registered ports. I had already gone through and cleaned up all the unregistered ports, but thanks to the creation of a new page and then the remerger, it's become combined again. In my opinion, this page should list official IANA registered usage, and clearly indicate when a port has a common, but unregistered use. If the consensus is that no one cares, I will stop making the distinction. Rakerman 16:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of having the distinction, but I think seperating them out leads to easy misinterpretation of what the list is. (I know I missed it when I merged the lists, until after, and then I didn't have more time.)  Personally I think adding a small marker to show that a particular usage is not official would be enough: It would make the distiction visible and avalible, allow easy comparison of what it conflicts with, make it obvious when editing a section that we do care, and shouldn't (with care selecting the marker) impede the reading of the list.  (I'm thinking something like marking the unregistered with a dagger: &dagger;) DStaal 19:28, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * I noticed that deprecated is the term used for port 57 on an AIX system, listed as official on the article. Perhaps deprecated should be the term used for official ports being phased out. Maybe we could use a light pink highlight to indicate this.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Port || Description || status
 * - bgcolor="lightpink"
 * 57/TCP || MTP Mail Transfer Protocol || deprecated
 * }
 * --Unixguy 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

port 587
should port 587 be listed? it is used for SMTP as a workaround of highspeed internet providers blocking port 25. i'm not sure if this is specified in any standard or is just a common practice. Xah Lee 01:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe this page needs to be split: Official/registered ports on one page, standard-in-practice ports on another? porges 08:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page has been split and remerged several times. It appears at least that splitting the page confuses people as to what should be here and what shouldn't.  My feeling, and what the page seems to represent at this point in time, is that if anyone cares they can look up the official list from the official sources.  (I think it may be around on Wikipedia somewhere as well.)  So, this page is exactly what it says it is: The 'Well-Known' ports.  Some of which are standard-in-practice and some of which are standard-in-fact.  (And some of which are both!)  Splitting it dilutes that: there would then be two places to look instead of one.  The question we may have to ask at some point is if a port is well-known enough, but I don't think we are there yet.  We have a system for making the distinction clear on what is 'official' and what isn't, so that is clear without separating the data. (Which only makes it harder to maintain and use.) DStaal 16:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * i got the answer from mailing lists. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2476.txt So, it should be in the page. Xah Lee 13:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

MDNS
I found this page very useful, but was wondering how viable MDNS was as being considered "well-known" by the page's title? I know that Apple seems to use it heavily for several applications including Bonjour and iTunes with DAAP. The homepage for mDNS can be found below:

Multicast DNS


 * It appears to meet Finlay McWalter's rule of thumb from the top of this page, and is likely to be a growing protocol. Add it.  DStaal 14:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

nim (1058) and nimreg (1059)
Someone added "nim" to Port 1058, with status "unknown" and it is listed as an official port in IANA docs, so I updated it and added its obviously associated "nimreg" (1059). But does anybody know what these are??? --tonsofpcs (Talk) 12:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A Google search doesn't turn up any info, beyond what we already have. I'm sure someone knows, but this does not seem to be 'Well Known' to me.  I'm removing them. DStaal 14:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * These 2 ports are used for Network Installation Manager for IBM AIX. I am putting them back in. --Unixguy 16:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Port registration
I searched for a IANA website discussing port registration, but I couldn't find one. Where can I find such a registration page? --Abdull 15:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl Rakerman 17:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing well-known port numbers
Hi, Believe the well-known ports list is incomplete. Specifically noted UDP Port 434, which is used for mobile routing and is included in IANA's well known ports list, is excluded. Don't know if anything else is missing. Regards, Tracy tracylizcarroll@cox.net tracy.carroll@jfcom.mil


 * There is no point in listing every single port - the IANA list already does this. In fact, I think it just confuses things to list ports that are registered but rarely or never used, like 101/TCP 	HOSTNAME, 107/TCP 	Remote Telnet Service, 109/TCP 	POP, Post Office Protocol, version 2.  Reading that, people may think telnet is on 107, which is pretty much never used, rather than the standard port 23. Rakerman 13:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Games
Would there be any need for a part of the list showing games multiplayer port numbers, I noticed some but not others (I have been told the SOF2 uses 2010, but I have not been able to verify this). Is this deliberate or siply due to the number of games an the lack of knowledge that even Wikipedia editors collectivley occasionally have?Phil alias Harry 06:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the port is notable, list it. I don't think a seperate section is a good idea on this list however.  (We've had seperate sections for various reasons, it always ended up as a maintance hassle.)  I don't think every game should be listed necesiarraly, but if it is big enough and used enough, list it. DStaal 14:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gobby, port 6522
I think Gobby should be included in the list, it's standard port is 6522, which is probably unofficial. --ReCover 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it appears to meet Finlay's rule of thumb so you might as well Be Bold add it. I won't be adding it because I've never heard of Gobby. It doesn't appear to be on the IANA list but check yourself before adding it. Nil Einne 20:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ports 5060 and 5061
These ports are listed as status "official", but color-coded as unofficial. Can someone authoritatively resolve the conflict? 131.6.84.67 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked the IANA list, and they are official. Color-coding fixed. DStaal 13:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Configuration hints
I don't know if this is appropriate, but I suggest someone either add a few lines or create a separate page explaining how to configure various OSs to force client software to use ports from the ephemeral range.

E.g.. for older versions of FreeBSD you needed to specify "ip_portrange_first='49152'" and "ip_portrange_last='65535'" in /etc/rc.conf. Nowadays. this is automatic in the more recent versions of FreeBSD. I guess it's similar for current versions of other U*ix like OSs.

For Microsoft Windows it seems you can only specify an upper boundary, MaxUserPort in the registry, but not a lower boundary. Perhaps there is a setting for the lower boundary hidden somewhere; I'm unable to find it.

Disregard this transmission if such information is already available on Wikipedia, and in that the case a link to the right page would be nice.

Page may be misleading
The IANA list includes quite a large number of registered ports in to 1024 - 49151 range which we don't list. While it probably isn't wise to include them all (and Finlay's rule of thumb seems like a good idea), we need to make it clear that there are other registered ports not listed since currently it's not clear. Furthermore, we need to ensure the article is accurate. For example, the eMule unofficial common ports are in conflict with registered IANA ports. Similar a few ports in the common Bittorent range are in conflict. Another example, the IRC ports are listed as unofficial yet they appear to be registered. The MSN ports are suggested as official yet according to IANA (6889-6945 Unassigned). I suggest someone with the time go through the list and make sure all ports listed as official are really registered ports, ports listed as unofficial are not in conflict and also not registered; and ports listed as in conflict are in conflict. Perhaps we should include no-wiki text in the page to remind editors to check whether a port is official etc before adding or alternatively tell them NOT to add a official/unofficial/conflict tag if they're not sure (it will be easier for later editors to add the tag rather then having to go through the list all the time to make sure no mistagged ports were added) Nil Einne 20:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I also just noticed something else possibly confusing or misleading
 * iRDMI - often mistakenly used instead of port 8080 (The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (iana.org) officially lists this port for iRDMI protocol

What is meant mistakenly used instead of 8080? The registered IANA port we would assume must be the correct port (i.e. 8000). Indeed, 8080 is intended as an alternate HTTP port. So really, I don't see how using 8000 for iRDMI can be a mistake. Perhaps port 8080 is sometimes mistakenly used for iRDMI? The only case I can think of when 8080 for iRDMI perhaps should be stated as a mistake is if there is some official spec for iRDMI which lists port 8080 as the port. In this case, we should mention 8000 as the official port, but also mention 8080 is specificed in whatever spec. Alternatively, if there is no such thing as a spec, an iRDMI is only one program, then perhaps we can say the official IANA port is 8000 but the program uses 8080 instead Nil Einne 20:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Okay I worked out what:
 * iRDMI - often mistakenly used instead of port 8080 (The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (iana.org) officially lists this port for iRDMI protocol

is trying to say now. It's not saying using 8000 for iRDMI is a mistake but rather 8000 as an alternate HTTP port (is a mistake). However I think it's quite confusing the way it's currently written. I think we should list RDMI and then seperately (perhaps in brackets or probably in a seperate entry) mention that 8000 is also sometimes mistakenly used a HTTP alternative instead of 8080. Nil Einne 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Conflict" lines are unclear
The only entry in the table for port 465 is:
 * SMTP over SSL - CONFLICT with registered Cisco protocol

... so if there is a conflict, why is there no line for the Cisco protocol, whatever that is? Similarly for ports 1521, 2082, 2086, 5000, 6112, 6969, 9001, 9800 and 10000: there are conflicts listed, but only one line in the table. The conflicts for ports 80, 1337 and 8000 are much clearer, with one line for the "official" usage, and another line for the conflicting "unofficial" usage. I think that for every conflict, a separate line should be included for each conflicting protocol, so we can see which (if any) of those protocols are official. If the conflicting usage is not important enough to go in the table, it shouldn't be listed as a conflict. Mtford 19:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - column for Firewall info
I would like to see a column added to the table, giving information on setting up port forwarding for typical firewalls. For example, it might indicate that only 21/TCP needs to be opened up to support FTP. Alternatively, a second page would be fine with me...
 * 'Typical firewalls' is a vauge term. I'm going to assume you mean packet firewalls.  For 99% or so of these the answer would be 'only this port needs to be opened.'  Since the exceptions are so rare, I'd say dealing with it in the pages on the protocols is a better idea.  (For reference: FTP is the only commonly used protocol that I know of that needs more than it's assigned port number open.) DStaal 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Port 22
"On a properly secured system, port 22 should be the only port open." - according to what/whom? Dlombard 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've heard the argument before, but it always is given with all kinds of exceptions and special cases. I removed the line. DStaal 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

UDP Port 117
Not mentioned UDP port 117 is used by *nix XDMCP protocol.

TCP/UDP Port 2009
Not mentioned, but currently active on my solaris systems... Port 2009 does appear in the IANA port-numbers lists.
 * 2009/tcp open  news
 * 2009/tcp news
 * 2009/udp whosockami

All that I can find on it is repeated at:
 * [TCP port 2009 protocol information and warnings.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakshale (talk • contribs) 16:37, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought...
Should it maybe be mentioned what the significance of conflicts is? i.e. the impact or lack thereof of two conflicting programs attempting to connect on the port and so on.-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 08:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

2049/udp listed twice.
Isn't the first listing suppose to be 2049/tcp for NFS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.116.105 (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)