Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:09:33PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:Daniel P. Berrange wrote:For the libvirtd we currently use two ports 16509 - TCP unencrypted stream 16514 - TLS encrypted stream My first thought is that we should really use consequetive port numbers eg 16510 and 16511.A few comments ...We don't need to use two ports if we either use a "STARTTLS"-style upgrading of unencrypted to encrypted connections (which is the recommended way to do things instead of using two ports), or more simply we just ditch unencrypted connections. They're disabled by default anyway and not in any way required unless we want libvirt to build without GnuTLS.The TCP stuff would be useful if you made it listen on 127.0.0.1 and were using SSH to connect to libvirt remotely. So since the client sides has SSH tunnellin support we probably ought to keep the plain TCP server, since you don't want to be tunnelling TLS over SSH :-)
Why's that any more useful than the current ssh method, which uses Unix domain sockets?
Rich. -- Emerging Technologies, Red Hat - http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/ Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature