At times I can see why some OS's would tend to try to slow you down and make you think before you whilly nilly assign something to port 80 and other "protected" ports.
On IBM i I have had some software vendors who assume that anything which shows up in CFGTCP, 1 is fair game to bind to. Really blows their minds when they see multiple entries. And, yes, I have seen "just pick the first one that's not 127.0.0.1".
However efforts to restrict that to higher levels of authority on IBM i would often be in vain as all vendors insist that installation must be done under QSECOFR.
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of James H. H. Lampert
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 1:16 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Why adulterate ports vs using an additional IP address? Was: Ports IP specific?
On 5/28/19, 9:53 AM, David Gibbs via MIDRANGE-L wrote:
In order to bind to a port from 1-1024 you need to have special
authority. In the unix world, that's restricted to root. I'm not sure
what authorities are needed on IBM i.
We have a fair amount of experience setting up Tomcat servers, mainly on IBM Midrange boxes. And the first time we ever encountered obstacles to binding Tomcat to 80 or 443 (other than collisions with other servers) was when we tried to set one up on a Linux box.
--
JHHL
midrange.com
