[zeromq-dev] subports

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Wed Jul 27 12:46:00 CEST 2011

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> wrote:

> The problem with-in process subports is that that way single-port setup,
> which is the most desirable configuration on the client side, implies
> single-server setup at the service provider side, which is apparently not a
> desirable feature.

Do you have data backing that "apparently not desirable" statement?

The use case I gave was quite specific. It's absolutely about reducing
the number of TCP ports needed by a _single_ service. Highly
desirable. This was explicitly discussed both at that meeting, and on
this list.

> I agree that running a vtcpd deamon at the server side is a bit annoying...

Well, this may be a useful tool in its own right but it's just the
wrong solution (name service?) for the problem I described. Calling
them both "subports" is highly confusing.

I'd suggest using "port forwarding" and "named subports".


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list