[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Default Ports

[Eric Helms]

Thanks for following up with an issue Mike!

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:45 PM Mike DePaulo <mikedep333 at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 4:36 PM Mike DePaulo <mdepaulo at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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)
> > 24817
> >
> > 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.
>
> Since users can interact with the API via web browser, I submitted a
> task for 24816 (API) & 24817 (content):
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4556
>
> -Mike
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190320/065e7b60/attachment.htm>