Opinions on default UDP binding?

[Dustin]

It seems that the UDP binding that's on by default is causing more
confusing than it's worth (difficulty to bring up a second instance on
a different port, for example).

I propose we do one of two things:

1) Assume almost nobody uses it just disable it by default, allowing
people who actually use it to burn the resources and do the extra
work.

2) Create some kind of complicated, but intuitive port-follow rules
so that when someone specifies a TCP binding port parameter, but not a
UDP port binding parameter, that the UDP port binding is on the same
number (and vice versa).

[Clint Webb]

#1.


--
"Be excellent to each other"

[dormando]

#2. We keep disabling/re-enabling the UDP stuff since folks want to write
clients that assume it's there sometimes.

Think the follow rules just need to be: if only one setting has been
overridden, the other one follows? Or is there need for something weirder?

-Dormando

[Adam Thomason]

How about making the bind error non-fatal if a port wasn't explicitly specified? That should Just Work for most people.