[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Default Ports

Mike DePaulo mdepaulo at redhat.com
Thu Mar 7 21:36:05 UTC 2019

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:46 PM Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm fine if someone wants to take up the effort to find and suggest two ports that match all of those as the defaults.

I suggest:
24816 (powers of 2: 2, 4, 8, 16)

They're not officially reserved, and only used by Apple "med-ltp" as
part of a block of 1000 ports. [1] [2]

I am new to Pulp, but I think other devs indicated that users may
browse available content. If so, I suggest we use 24816 for content,
and 24817 for API.

> I've already opened a PR to make port customization a reality. In most environments, these ports won't see the light of day as they will be running services on localhost with a webserver proxying to them. I was aiming for sane defaults, that users and developers could easily rely on and expect across basic environments. And allow customization in environments that need it.

Understood, I was not aware of this. But we need to prevent any
conflicts by default. Even if we only listen on localhost, we can
conflict with services listening on all interfaces. Users are likely
to give up on Pulp if they run into a port conflict; either because
they cannot figure it out ("why isn't this service starting?") or
because they spend too much time trying to set it up and other
priorities come up.


[1] http://www.adminsub.net/tcp-udp-port-finder/24816
[2] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202944

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:13 PM Mike DePaulo <mdepaulo at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 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

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list