Talk:List of TCP and UDP port numbers/Archive 2

6489:

analysis, evaluation, or interpretation to connect that to TCP. It would appear that the manual cannot be used as a source. As for looking in code, the purpose of citations in Knowledge is so that an average person can look up the cite and verify that something is true. I would argue that the average person cannot do so with code, but perhaps more important, even if they could then the code is itself a primary source and I would argue that you cannot take a snippet of code out of context and say that it necessarily means something without impermissibly analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting it in the context of the entire program (for a couple of gross examples, how does one know that it's not buried in a chunk of code that's been commented out or jumped over by a goto or if or other conditional branching station) and/or impermissibly analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting with knowledge of how the code is supposed to work. —

6231:, for the record: I have no "external relationship to Artemis" other than that I enjoy playing it, with other local people who also enjoy playing it. I also enjoy reverse-engineering some of the protocols - which (unless you count USB/serial DMX) are all on TCP port 2010, in case you hadn't guessed. None of my current or previous employers have anything to do with Artemis. I do not receive, or expect to receive, any compensation with respect to Artemis, never mind any Knowledge edits relating to it. I have no financial relationship with Artemis other than having bought a copy of it a few years ago. Artemis is but one, of many, hobbies. I would certainly consider myself an SME, but purely on a hobby basis, just like I'm a hobbyist Knowledge editor. 5731: 5707: 5637: 31: 6750: 5593: 5559: 3969: 4012: 5719: 5687: 5648: 3646: 6555:. If there is no reliable source which directly, unequivocally, and without interpretation supports a piece of information, the solution is to leave it out of the encyclopedia. For Knowledge, that's not a bug but a feature, as I've explained above, so not only is it a solution it's a perfectly-acceptable solution. The source doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed academic journal, but it does have to be a 3615: 6859: 5757: 5659: 5628: 5527: 5498: 3219: 3066: 3027: 2988: 2949: 2818: 2779: 2685: 6910: 6791: 5615: 1356: 6693: 5698: 5670: 2903: 2857: 4749:

I found two ways to include the legend in the table, which I've added to the proposal. Neither I'm totally satisfied with from accessibility perspective. The first one uses a table heading for a caption, which is not a semantic caption. The second one is closer to a real semantic caption, but it uses

2389:

Multi-use port color coding is lacking/not sufficient. The issue being that we have color coding for official, unofficial, and multi-use. What color code do we use when it is both multi-use official? multi-use unofficial? And best yet multi-use official/unofficial? With the last likely being the most

2154:

TCP services with port numbers 6541 and 6542 appear between 5632 and 5655, so they may be mistyped and could mean 5641 and 5642. I didn't find any conclusive information about MirrorOp2, but it could very well be a remote desktop application, similar to pcAnyWhere which seems to use ports 5641 (TCP)

1696:

I really have to disagree with your criteria as to what ports you include in your list. It is quite confusing to look for what you believe is a defined user port and then discover that you are "wrong". You have to go to the IANA website in order to realise that it actually is Knowledge that is wrong.

6559:

which isn't self-published or has to be a source which is self-published but which falls under one of the exceptions to the self-published source policy and passes muster, if applicable, as a primary source. Let me add this before someone brings it up: I haven't looked but I'd be pretty surprised if

6532:

if you prefer) to get to it. I'd argue "an average person" can run a windows installer and then open a text editor, certainly if given instructions, but your points are valid nonetheless, particularly that it requires some evaluation of a "primary source". So what's the solution here? Do we honestly

6469:

talk page discussion before seeking assistance. However, having said that, let me note that the 3O request said, "Disagreement on verifiability/whether an editor's contribution with user-generated sources provides more value to the article than no information at all." If that's a fair description of

1566:

As for unofficial usage, especially outside of the well-known and registered port ranges, a good show of significance is required. I like Kvng's idea of requiring either a relevant article or an outside citation, though greater weight should be given the former. No better way to show notability than

1563:

The official source list contains more than what's listed here because people haven't gotten around to adding some. People only work on what they care about. Being an official, registered port is more than sufficient for inclusion here. The citation is readily available: the official list. This list

903:

All of the ports VMware uses are conflicts with registered ports, and those have been registered in in the iana list for years. Why aren't they listed here? I went ahead and added 902 thisafternoon, since that's the most common conflict you see reported when installing VMWare server. Is there any

6483:

are not, with a few exceptions (click on that link to see them, along with the information in the section after that one), reliable sources. One of those exceptions, the one in that next section, which might be important here is the one which says that self published sources can be reliable sources

3462:

Thank you for your work on this. I take issue with your claim that there has been little or no enforcement of contents. There are dozens of editors watching this page and it has been edited frequently. If you come by this conclusion based on the state of the article, please be aware that there is a

3329:

before August 2016, when I started editing. Even as I clean up the list, there are articles which I can verify to exist, but am unable to assess if they are notable enough for inclusion (in scope) when they may not have a Knowledge article, or specific parts of the protocol are not described in the

1383:

I would agree that the conflict markings should be removed. Conflicts only occur when two services are actually installed on the same system, but this happens so rarely with most of these obscure services that it does not constitute a problem worth marking. In addition, there are many more ports in

1168:

The few references I can find to this old NAI product (other than copies of this article, hosted elsewhere) suggest that McAfee replaced this product and may have continued using the port for updates to the maleware signatures. I can't find any evidence that they do or don't still use this port for

6488:

says, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." From what's been said, above, it would appear that the manual does not refer to TCP but only to connections, which requires impermissible

5713:: Port 7831 (Smartlaunch Internet Cafe Administration) failed source verification, no match for 7831 or TCP (original research). The reference given says version 4.1, while the Wayback Machine URI shows version 4.0. But the software listed has questionable notability, so I removed it from the list. 4778:

I suppose this is a feature, but today I noticed the table colors are not displayed on paper when printed (or at least in Chromium print preview). It's also a bit hilariously making the table legend confusing, because all the colors of the legend appear white. Something to take into consideration,

3519:

Cited reason for removal: Visual edit, unclear notability, lacking a better source) A few points I'd like clarification on; 1) If visual edit mode is frowned upon, why is it enabled? 2) Unclear notability - How does one get notability if one's edits are removed? 3) I thought that the www.iana.org

1441:

I like how it was done, using SCTP in place of TCP. But after I looked at how DCCP was done, I didn't like how the TCP,DCCP entry looked. It made the whole TCP column much wider. So I created a new row for each of the DCCP entries. Do we add a new column, or add a new row for this new protocol?

6381:

Are we genuinely uncertain about whether it uses TCP, or just whether we can cite appropriate sources to demonstrate it? I know Knowledge isn't a court of law, but wouldn't "beyond reasonable doubt" or "balance of probability" count for something here? If I was posting about the efficacy of some

1398:

For what it's worth, I was confused on reading this article with the three color highlights. The yellow highlight represents conflict (i.e, two protocols having same port #). Although this has nothing to do with which protocol is official/unofficial for that port, yellow highlight seems to trump

6533:

need an article published in an edited journal? But the Steam article isn't good enough, nor the official manual referring to "connections", nor the config file referring to TCP 2010? And "the preponderance of evidence" isn't enough until an editor approves someone else's article saying so? --

3737:

There also isn't anything to merge. The source article has had its listed items copied directly from the target article. If you'd like, you can add references to the target article to support those claims. Notably I haven't sweeped yet through port range 7000 – 7999 to establish notability and

930:

Econet was a networking service - protocol and hardware - used by Acorn Computers Ltd of England in their microcomputers. With the adoption of Ethernet, they implemented "AUN" (Acorn Universal Networking) which encapsulated the econet packets within UDP packets, on port 32768.

768:

This list really needs to be split, not jsut because of wikipedia guideliones on size ie it approaching 100kb size, but not least because with udp and tcp in one it quite confussing, i understand it but if i take out my network knowledge it very hard ot understand. Any views or

3376:

More issues with the table come from the fact that IANA may have assigned both TCP and UDP, but commonly the protocol only uses one by design or specification. This sometimes leads to editors removing (blanking) the other protocol, while it is still "valid" to mention both.

496:

I certainly agree with getting rid of the rubbish "RSFTP" protocol and any others that have been identified. RSFTP and the Hyperwave thing just appear to be advertising. I don't see the need to have a big discussion about this - the measures you've outlined seem sensible.

1425:

How should we add port numbers that are only reserved for SCTP protocol (not used in tcp/udp) I was considering adding 36412 S1-Control Plane (3GPP) (officially registered by IANA) but current table has colums for tcp and udp but it's not clear how to add sctp only ports

206:

I agree that the article should have a references section, but part of that section should be made up by the very links you removed since they're links to corporate web sites that provide the best citations for the port numbers used by the commercial programs in

6560:

some of the other information in this article doesn't fail to meet those standards. What to do about that is a bit more complicated than I care to address here (in short it is: fix it, tag it, remove it, or leave it for someone else to deal with, but it's the

973:

hi , i ill tell u a story of a man whose was geneous in its own way . if u really wants to succced u need to be in touch with good smart people . and for that u neeed to do friendship with people like me . so why r u waiting .come and join me.--------arun.

798:

While this a a rather stale section, 100Kb isn't really that uncommon for a comprehensive list article. Where would you even draw the dividing line for a list such as this anyway? I see no clear division where anything could be split into a separate article.

6203:

It feels a bit crass to cite a game installer download as evidence, but if there's a correct way to cite sources inside Windows PE32 executable installers, and if that would honestly be a better citation than (say) the Steam article already reverted, let me

210:

I disagree that we should remove those links since having some links might attract commercial link spam, that can be delt with as it gets added and I don't think we should be removing useful links in the meantime to guard against that hypothetical scenario.

1310:

In either case, highlighting makes the list more information-dense. It draws attention to significant areas. I'm not too keen on highlighting both the official, registered service and and the unofficial colliders the same way, but that's beyond the point,

550:

There is a problem in the table for port numbers 9119 to 9800. The ports are listed as 9119, 9418, 9535, 9535, 9443, 9535, and 9800. I'm not sure whether "9443" is in the wrong place, or the first two "9535"s should be "9435"s, but something is amiss.

3405:

And for what little it's worth, the daily pageviews have increased about 2,000+ after the cleanup started. I could call this rewrite/cleanup very useful indeed. (Personally, I'm doing it for the fun of learning the every obscure protocol out there.)

6484:

for information about themselves if certain criteria are met (see the section for details), which might apply to the game's manual, but then there's one more factor to consider: The manual is not only self-published but is a primary source and the

1766:

I noticed the entry for rsync (873/T) is marked "Official USA Only". Huh? Unless I'm missing something, ports are either registered or not; there is no "you're registered for Russia only" or "you're registered for use everywhere but Scotland".

291:

As there was no opposition to the merge over the following 12 months, I've now carried it out and redirected that page name here. There was no need to merge the Doom reference (it was already in this article) and the virus claim was unsourced.

6478:

and if it cannot be so supported then it should not be in the encyclopedia. Satisfaction of the Verifiability policy is the threshold to inclusion. That rule applies even if the information is objectively absolutely true and vitally important.

3869:

IANA did indeed historically assign both TCP and UDP to ports, even if only one was ever used by design (e.g. TCPMUX). Currently (to my belief), IANA seems to assign only one protocol (TCP or UDP) on a port (if requested) and mark the other as

5326:

A total of 370 edits, added +76,080 and deleted -44,806. Overall this accounts for +31,274, which is 71.06 % of all text in this one year? I'm almost sure I also forgot one IP-address, but I can't find it. Wish I had better data to show.

3832:

The current table implies that most protocols use both TCP and UDP. It seems that the IANA frequenly assigned both TCP and UDP ports to a protocol even if it only actually used one or the other. Any thoughts on how best to handle this.

400:

The definition of inclusion should also address the protocol (TCP, or UDP, or both), and the listing should only include those protocols that meet the criteria (i.e., as I've learned, just because IANA registered it doesn't mean it is

1723:

In both of the wiki tables on the main page I lined up the Port number, TCP and UDP columns using spaces as padding. The reason for this is for wiki markup readability only. It does not affect the browser rendering of the page. --

6191:

I have done a certain amount of protocol reverse-engineering of this game, as a hobby. This might be considered "original research" but doesn't feel particularly original, and finding the TCP port seems like pretty superficial

1458:. I'd suggest that approach is not worth the effort. Plus, with a new row for the DCCP entry - the table may be sorted on that column (using UDP for both UDP and DCCP), putting the DCCP entries together. That's my 2 cents. -- 4755:

s. I'm also aware the color boxes don't really convey the message semantically, but there's seemingly a limitation preventing use of block elements in table captions on MediaWiki. (Ideally, the legend in caption should be a

3361:

I have generally taken the stance that if a company itself is notable, but their products don't have a Knowledge article (or a notable section about the product in the company's article), I have removed it from the list.

815:

You could split it for the different ranges of ports. the IANA has even done the ground work for us. Ports 0-1023 are the well known ports, 1024-49151 are the Registered Ports, and the rest are the dynamic/private ports.

410:

Remove entries, as needed, based on the above defintion. Some entries are very hard to find reference materiel for, which makes me suspect they really are not in common use (pardon my ignorance), for example this sample:

4845:

The main issue however is what appears to be original research: Ports 15100 and 15101 and TCP were not referenced at all by the original contributor, and I could not also find reliable sources to support this statement.

4897:, TruongDo♥microsoft•com). I am confirming those are the ports used by the app. Please advise on how we can officially confirm this information. Probably we can send out an email from our @microsoft.com email address? 1995:

A using reading this pages wants to see what protocols are used on a certain port. Having to go to 2 different list is counter-productive and many less experienced users won't even do that. Please keep them together.

743:

Those are not port numbers, those are *protocol* numbers. IPSEC-ESP and IPSEC-AH are IP protocols, just like TCP and UDP. They live at the same layer of the protocol stack. TCP is protocol number 6, UDP is 17 - see

3909:

sometime for some consistency and readability, but I'm unsure when the right time to do this would be. Other noteworthy thing is ports 2375–2380 in example: There is no consistent practice of marking them as reserved

1899:

How do we deal with RFC references to cite where it is defined as official? Do we put a citation after the name? or next the word official? Or do we do as is done on port 13 and put the RFC as a link in parentheses?

2399:

5859:

Is there a way to make IABot exclude these individual references using the links listed above (which require a registered account) without excluding the bot altogether, or an alternative way to exclude the bot per

5331:

Please consider contributing! It makes an impact, there's not a lot of volunteers working on this (semi-)actively. I'm sure there's also other contibutors to thank a lot, but I can't name any from top of my head.

2083: 579:

is there a reason why this is appended to the last table? looks like advertising to me, especially since it's out of order, and references the URL... is there a particular reason why SmartSystemsLLC is noteable?

2022:

Adding a column for date (as well as a column for the RFC) is useful. The date should be the official RFC publication date (for official ports). For unoffcial ports, the date could be the first usage reported.

6654: 1544:

Sounds quite reasonable to me. Those guidelines would indicate that every entry should have a wikilink and/or a citation. That's not too far off from where the article currently stands. I'll work towards that.

3442:

I have also added some citations, which may be duplicated or not very accurate (e.g. not anchoring to right page where multiple things are being referenced at once) in places. Some of these I have marked with

1217:

Whoops, there is port 1222 in the well-known ports section. Well-known-ports range from 0 to 1023 only, so it must be some kind of mistake here. Anyone here who is willing to fix this? Thanx in advance... --

519:

I'm hoping someone knows more about these ports than I do, but I noticed they weren't in the list so I figured I would mention them to see if someone would be willing to research and add them to the list.

3298:

While Laravel itself may be notable enough for inclusion by Knowledge's standards, unless there's reliable third-party sources to verify and tell me what port 8000 is about, I don't see this happening.

1158:

There are plenty of obsolete or deprecated ports listed here. This list, as currently formed, is a combination of a historical and current port usage. Leaving the entry seems OK, based on that criteria

3777: 1308:

Or, to take a different tack, it's not original research because you don't need a source: it's immediately verifiable. To identify a conflict, read the list. Two services on the same port? Conflict.

5968: 5749: 5607: 2122:

I'm not sure where to put this, just wanted to throw it out there. The bios on certain machines lists connections to port 6910 for the Dell Cloud Desktop server. It appears to be a Wyse product.

6195:

Anyone can download the DEMO version of the game for free or pay for a Steam copy, and see for themselves that it uses TCP port 2010, or examine the artemis.ini inside any of the installer files:

4788: 4773: 3953: 4887: 531:

They both appear to be part of a torrent network, as the packets being uploaded/downloaded are accessing numerous IP addresses worldwide and seem to be a considerable drag on my network. Best

3555:

creates unwanted newlines to the page source, inconsistent with the table. I've never used it, and it certainly doesn't seem to be the default editor (at least for unregistered contributors).

3860:

Thanks for starting this discussion. I don't think there's an easy solution, or it's not an appropriate time to solve due to burden of unnotable entries. This has also been noted before at

6188:

It's probably safe to assume that no peer-reviewed academic journal is ever likely to publish an article on Artemis SBS network protocols, so the above might be the best we could hope for.

5882: 5586: 1970:

I think unofficial uses should be listed separately from official uses. Also, if official uses are listed it should be an exhaustive list seeing as the information is easily available at

6504: 2486: 2289: 6375: 6146: 404:

I do recommend that ports be listed in a complete "set", even if some ports of the ports in that set are not in "common" usage, e.g., all Kerberos ports should be listed if one is listed

6258:

I feel like this subject list is having a hard time with verifiability and notability of examples (as seen by the to-do list on this talk page), but Artemis does fit the description of

5206:

There was a positive increase in daily pageviews until October 2016. On the last days of year 2016, pageviews dropped substantially and returned immediately after the new year started.

3768:

Should we add a table to the dynamic/private ports section for additions like these? What would be the criteria for verification and inclusion, since they are not in the scope of IANA?

2109: 6321: 5772: 675: 658: 6302: 6242: 3922:

or not. It'd require substantial effort to verify both assignment and actual use, and there's no easy way to say if some software uses the other protocol when the mainstream doesn't.

3752: 663:

The link for this unofficial port designation is broken. I note that nmap reports this port as belonging to this same service, but I cannot find any supporting refrences. Comments?

267: 250: 233: 215: 934:

Although Acorn bit the dust a long time ago, their hardware soldiers on in many places, and over the last few years, emulators such as BeebEm now support the networking protocols.

4985: 4916: 2504: 2500: 2307: 2303: 6047: 3698: 5944: 5914: 3996: 3935: 6655:

https://web.archive.org/web/20161025011723/https://support.teamspeakusa.com/index.php?%2FKnowledgebase%2FArticle%2FView%2F79%2F19%2Fwhich-ports-does-the-teamspeak-2-server-use

4838:

The references from CNET News and PC Magazine read out like a review. Betanews is more news-like, but uncertain for me if it's a notable publication. It only briefly mentions

2093: 6930: 6783: 4942:). A reliable source is a previously published source, preferably from a (peer-reviewed) secondary/third-party source. Reliable sources are needed for an encyclopedia to be 3571:, for the limited scope. The list is not meant to be exhaustive, or a copy of IANA's port assignment list. Ports listed in this article must be referenced to a third-party 1921:

There has been repeated vandalism to the low port numbers on this page, surely only official uses should be listed for the well known ports, or splitting it as per below.

5693:

The Docker reference was rescued correctly, but its factual accuracy may not be up to date anymore. I checked the current guide and it recommends port 4000, not port 4243.

6519: 1227: 390:

protocol-name-from-IANA-list-in-case-used-there, expansion of protocol-name into text if needed (expansion of acronyms if any) "protocol" - brief description of protocol

6811: 5354:

died last year. I tried using both web search engine and Wayback Machine on Xfire's official website to find any kind of citation for port 25999, but was unable to. So,

2079: 2011: 2166: 1989: 6658: 6474:

requires a fact to have a source (and it does if the information is challenged or likely to be challenged, both of which apply in this case) it must be supported by a

3800:). The source given only supports the statement of that port being used for PVP.net, while League of Legends uses UDP ports 5000–5500. In comparison to something like 2454: 2087: 2034: 2007: 1932: 1643:

You can try but will probably get reverted. An alternative would be to all such entries and let is sit for a while to see if anyone makes an effort to help verify. --

1223: 1183: 648: 6587: 6542: 372: 354: 177: 6391: 3723:

I've tagged it with speedy deletion, since there isn't enough context and references to verify notability. The same article has also been previously speedy deleted.

2374: 2105: 2058: 1985: 1826: 1802: 587: 397:

Provide a crisper definition of why links are included ("commonly used" is a bit vague, unless we can find some external reference on "common usage" of these ports)

169: 2185: 690: 155: 3520:

website itself would be confirmation enough for a registered port - if this is not the case, could someone please explain to me where I have gone wrong? Thankyou,

2227: 1298:

original research, as nobody except an encyclopedia is going to have a a list of known port conflicts, and so there cannot be a source to cite. However, it is not

1012: 915: 716: 562: 1150: 1127: 1102: 1076: 892: 6901: 6742: 5551: 4794: 3639: 2267: 1885: 3476: 3358:

may need more description to explain in short terms what the protocol is about (without opening the self-reference wikilink), and there are many more of these.

2142: 1869: 1313:

I am totally with you on the need for an explanation of the significance of port conflicts. Got any good ideas as far as appropriate sources to cite, though? —

5341: 3747: 3732: 3631: 3603: 3395:

to be appropriate at this point as the existing ports (especially unofficial ones) are a great base for modification, but lots of cleanup is still to be done.

2404: 1787: 1554: 1535: 919: 825: 808: 601:

Is this article really come across by people looking for infomation about seaports?? Is that disambiguation link at the top of the article really neccessary?

5203:

for this one. The decline may be explained by Knowledge's overall decline(?) and less web search results landing on this page after cleaning "all that crap".

3467:

and your interpretation, stated above and which I interpret as omitting basically anything that is not a bluelink of some kind, is more stringent than most. ~

2662: 2592: 1684: 1652: 1638: 1467: 5375: 4958: 2652: 200: 6678: 3503: 989: 966: 506: 6277:

because it's not easy, obvious or "reliable" to verify. I also don't have Windows operating system or easy means to verify the existence of this file from

1431: 943: 935: 3259: 3132: 2725: 2550: 1608: 1578: 1375: 1342: 1324: 1037: 6308:

The wiki and Steam community post may be subject to change at any time and may have little to no editorial oversight, so I'd reject those as references.

4743: 671: 558: 536: 2353: 6644: 2038: 1712: 6182:

port 2010. I could link to several others but they would probably all be considered "user-generated" by someone who wanted to take the extreme stance.

3822: 3718: 3456: 3437: 3415: 3308: 2393:

1) Add a column: multi-use - true/false or yes/no I don't think this will work very well as new rows are added old rows would also have to be edited.

856: 652: 5960: 5936: 5874: 5741: 5599: 5578: 5333: 5308: 5142:

A possible explanation for unknown/undetermined statuses is a lack of consistency or typos. The method of examination was a simple text search using

4977: 4879: 2845: 2149: 2412: 2378: 566: 6534: 6383: 6313: 6294: 6262:

for inclusion. Having a hard time is the reason why I felt cautious to your edit: Less "issues" (maintenance templates) is usually for the better.

6250: 6234: 6072:

NoseyNick argues "connecting" (as described in the manual) means UDP is off-the-table, because UDP doesn't do handshakes to establish a connection.

6058: 1016: 288:

into this page. The Port 666 article was an unsourced and orphaned stub which simply noted an association with first-person shooters and viruses.

6185:

Though a number of print publications have published reviews of Artemis, none have mentioned the IP port or protocol(s) used as far as I can tell.

5459: 4999:

These are not measurements of quality and should be taken as a grain of salt. I hope someone has better use for this data to improve the article.

330:) doesn't make the ICQ use of 5190 "Official". I plan to make a change in a day or so to show ICQ as "Unofficial" and in conflict on port 5190. -- 256: 6382:

quack medical treatment I could understand this level of scrutiny, but honestly, this amount of argument over... a TCP port used by a game?!? --

5240: 4925: 4904: 4780: 4765: 4735: 3988: 3945: 3927: 3814: 3769: 1427: 591: 71: 59: 5988: 2396:

2) Each port is a single row. List each service is as row in a service column that has sub columns of TCP | UDP | Description | Status example:

1889: 1491: 621: 120: 4521: 4506: 3804:, I don't quite understand or see how PVP.net would meet notability of its own (or if they're even comparable). Thus, I reverted the edit with 1911: 1851: 1212: 877: 667: 532: 304: 3852: 1733: 540: 345:

I don't have a strong opinion on this but think there is no need to mark it as a conflict (unless another AOL protocol uses the same port). -

6211:

port 2010, we are fairly unlikely to obtain any strong evidence to the contrary, at least for current versions of the game, so listing it as

1965: 1936: 1256: 100: 6363:

for UDP? It's been my goal to disambiguate in the table what "TCP" and "UDP" mean (real-use or port assignments only). "?" for uncertainty.

2237: 1414: 339: 4994: 2247: 2171: 2062: 1049: 488: 433: 3588: 1267:

Since we're not listing all known usage of ports, identifying conflicts appears to be problematic. Identifying conflicts also flirts with

757: 720: 2642: 1756: 1697:

If you do not want to correct the page, certainly it should be clearly stated somewhere that the list is neither complete nor accurate.

778: 6572:

nonconforming material to the article using the currently included nonconforming material as a reason, "precedent," or excuse. Regards,

3529: 4803:

to the article twice without reliable sources. On the second chance, I gave it a benefit of doubt and went digging for sources myself.

4440: 3184: 2806: 6528:, for your help. It's not exactly "code", it's a config file, however you do have to run a Windows installer (which works fine under 4614: 3797: 1960: 1393: 6854:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

6688:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

6659:

https://support.teamspeakusa.com/index.php?%2FKnowledgebase%2FArticle%2FView%2F79%2F19%2Fwhich-ports-does-the-teamspeak-2-server-use

5493:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

5002: 2455:

https://web.archive.org/20100821032559/http://www.assa.se/Other/ASSA/Products/Broschyrer%20Svenska/Passersystem/ARX-Passersystem.pdf

1450:. Now there are 2 other Protocols we are trying to squeeze in. With significant editing effort, we could create 2 new columns for 3765:

UDP ports 60000–61000 to the article. Currently, we don't have a table for notable ports operating in dynamic/private port ranges.

3174: 2767: 2622: 1288: 792: 1435: 1207: 898: 6628: 2891: 1761: 473:

While working towards that goal (which will require authoring a number of articles), every entry should at least have a reference

3893:

could also be used, but I can't come into an agreement with myself which one to use. I'd like to see the table converted to use

3490:. This was the third time removing this from the list. If you believe first-defense is notable enough, create an article for it 2612: 2458: 2228:

https://web.archive.org/20120118075409/http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1820/prod_bulletin09186a0080091d01.html

1497:

It is a good question. Having been one of the editors involved with this article for a while, I'd offer the following thoughts:

4962: 407:

Only show conflicts among ports listed per the criteria above, not just because there is more than one defined use of that port

3402:

after the cleanup is done. It is not appropriate while the cleanup is ongoing, as it could cause undue load on the reviewers.

2464: 2268:

https://web.archive.org/20140418220742/http://service.axencesoftware.com/entries/20610646-porty-uzywane-przez-nvision-i-agenta

191:), secondly I would be in favour of removing all external links as they only attract commercial link spam over time. Cheers - 5964: 5940: 5878: 5745: 5603: 5582: 5337: 4981: 4883: 4225: 3703: 1141:

I believe this port usage is obsolete. At a minimum, it should be ref'd as such. Perhaps it should be removed from the list.

47: 17: 3517: 2231: 1971: 1840: 6199:; SETTING: networkPort ; USE: listening port that Artemis connects on ; ACCEPTABLE: acceptable TCP ports networkPort=2010 2937: 2663:

https://web.archive.org/20130502061720/http://www.scheduler-usage.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1229

2593:

https://web.archive.org/20090201065757/http://www.verisign.com:80/research/Internet_Registry_Information_Service/index.html

2138: 2117: 2030: 2003: 1928: 1219: 981: 958: 644: 346: 259: 225: 192: 6510:

I forgot to say this earlier: Thank you for the insight and and clarification where I'm unable to express myself clearly.

5421: 3564:

in November 2015 for lack of notability. The parent article also doesn't talk about LPAR2RRD, so it is probably unnotable.

2653:

https://web.archive.org/20140419012604/https://getsatisfaction.com/bstk/topics/network_broadcast_from_bluestacks_beacon_v1

2632: 2271: 247: 212: 174: 6922: 6844: 6803: 6775: 6679:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140408220514/http://www.4d.com/4d_docv13/4D/13/Configuration-preferences.300-845386.en.html

6511: 6367: 6178:

I believe THREE separate occasions I've linked to "user-generated" but at least somewhat "curated" articles that mention

6138: 6052: 5764: 5726:: Both VMWare references are dead and seemingly unreliable from URI. Replaced with a new, more "reliable" primary source. 5443: 5367: 5291: 5274: 5220: 4784: 4769: 4739: 3992: 3949: 3931: 3818: 3773: 3495: 3448: 3429: 3407: 3300: 2370: 2101: 2054: 1981: 1406: 1248: 583: 6634: 3579:

I can say the scope is not very clearly defined in the lead paragraph of the article. That's something to improve upon.

1675:

issue with . Please add a wikilink or citation to these entries to prevent them from becoming candidates for removal. --

386:

Edit the description column to have a consistent style. You'll see a number of variants. I recommend the following form:

6700:

An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the

5868:

and converting it to a Lua module, but failing that I'd probably like to deprecate that "stupid" template in favor for

5346: 5257: 3739: 3724: 3690: 3623: 3580: 2910:

An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the

2864:

An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the

2666: 1008: 911: 712: 112: 2656: 6819: 6595: 6312:

I believe the Steam post has a certain amount of editorial oversight, but I'll admit I can't be bothered prove it --

5380: 3482: 3365:

The table legend colors can be difficult to maintain. There also seems not to be an exact criteria what qualifies as

3137: 2730: 2602: 2555: 2417: 2257: 1881: 1704: 161: 6836: 6645:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120707191140/http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/help.html?content=debugging_02.html

6612: 5397: 2596: 2468: 1587:

I don't agree with your position but, digging a little deeper, I note that there is no official policy on list item

6828: 6604: 5389: 4947: 4173: 3146: 2739: 2564: 2426: 2199: 1088: 925: 184: 5850:

implementation would also work, but I don't find it more semantic or shorter to use. This list makes heavy use of

2846:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110715031707/http://www.p-rd.com/downloads/PRD%20-%20history%20and%20introduction.pdf

1613:

I propose removing all unofficial entries that cannot be verified through a reliable secondary source. Rationale:

1007:

added. I put it in and cited an official source for it; I think I got the formatting right, feel free to improve!

6682: 6156:

The game itself, and the manual, are not "only" self-published, but also (at the risk of being unduly accused of

5076: 5011: 4961:. If you are getting paid to edit or create articles where you may have a conflict of interest, please also read 4382: 4314: 4246: 2190: 852: 831: 617: 429: 5405: 4002: 3567:

You're right, IANA is the authorative source. However mere verifiable existence is not enough for inclusion per

3054: 2503:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2306:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

736:* 50 is Encap Security Payload (esp / IPSEC-ESP ) protocol * 51 is IPSEC-AH - Authentication Header protocol 6410: 5460:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130311124123/http://www.smartlaunch.net/Download/Smartlaunch_Product_Overview.pdf

4939: 4912: 4075:(TCPMUX). Historic. Both TCP and UDP have been assigned to TCPMUX by IANA, but by design only TCP is specified. 3848: 1473: 326:

article notes "...the protocol is proprietary...". Just because AOL owns ICQ these days (via their purchase of

394:

Remove nonexistent Wiki article links - initially, replace with reference to RFC or other authoritative source

6168: 1862: 1571: 1317: 6917:. The link was rotten and rescued by the bot. Not a very appropriate reference for an encyclopedia, though ( 6648: 6164:) available on Steam . The official manual doesn't say "TCP" but does mention "Connect", "Connections", etc. 3015: 6896: 6737: 6672: 5546: 5431: 5415: 4581: 4485: 4072: 2976: 2849: 4531: 3813:

League of Legends itself is notable for inclusion, so I'll be adding ports 5000–5500 to the list shortly.

1773:

Thoughts, anyone? Unless someone knows of a good source for this claim, I will remove it as unsupported.

143: 6281:

on an Unix-like operating system I'm using, but with little user-generated sources you've linked and the

3661: 3313: 3264: 2238:

https://web.archive.org/20080616122132/http://www-306.ibm.com:80/software/tivoli/products/netcool-impact/

2017: 6871: