[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Default Ports

[Mike DePaulo]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:08 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:05 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:01 AM Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > For most Pulp 3 installations, it seems there are two default applications that will be running: API and content. Those applications are set to run on 8000 and 8080 respectively. I was thinking that it might be more obvious for operators and developers to have the defaults next to each other in order to make it more predictable and easier to remember. Ultimately, these ports should be configurable for different environments, but sane easy to remember defaults have their value.
> > >
> > > My suggestion is: 8080 (API) and 8081 (content).
> > >
> >
> > I would suggest not using any standard HTTP auxiliary ports by
> > default. Is there a compelling reason to do so?
> >
>
> Welp, this isn't clear enough. I mean that the ports should be unique
> to Pulp rather than something that could be construed as something
> that would unknowingly conflict.

I agree with Neal,

I cannot find a definitive list of the standard HTTP auxiliary ports,
but lots of websites and open source/commercial web apps/web GUIs use
8080 or 8008 because 80 is already in use or is expected to be in use.
I think the same applies to 8000 as well. And lots of small-scale
sysadmins run multiple applications on the same server.

Cockpit uses 9090 partially for this reason.

What I suggest we do is find 2 ports (sequential like Eric suggests)
over 1024 that are not officially IANA assigned, and just Google to
make sure they are not commonly & unofficially used by any
application.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers

There is one downside, which is that some organizations' firewalls
allow standard HTTP auxiliary ports like 8080 but not arbitrary ports.
This may be less common nowadays, and I feel it is outweighed.

-Mike