Randomize port

[Synbios]

Once in a while, the randomize port will assign a port in a registered range.

According to IANA, http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers , the private range of ports is between 49152 and 65535. Why not have it so that the port randomizer feature only assigns ports in this range?

edit: it might so the ports under 49152 still fall under an unregistered port, but wouldn't it be easier to just assign all those between 49152 and 65535?

[Firon]

The randomizer gives ports above 10000 and that's the best you're gonna get, because the registered port range is totally meaningless.

[Synbios]

I understand why you think the registered port range is meaningless, but I already have other applications on my network that use ports above 10000 that uTorrent could potentially (and has before) interfered with. I have to randomize because my ISP throttles if you use too much bandwidth on one port.

I guess a better feature request: would it be possible to specify a range for port randomization? That way I can just set aside a group of a couple thousand ports for uTorrent and make sure not to use those ports for my other applications. If this is possible, I hope you consider it in the future because I can imagine that my situation is like many others.

Thanks

[DreadWingKnight]

If your other applications are already using the ports when uTorrent starts up, when uTorrent attempts to use the port it gets an error. When this happens, uTorrent then tries a different port again and again until it gets one it can use.

Specifying randomization ranges has been rejected before.

[Firon]

I don't think it was rejected, but it's really really low on the priority list.

[moogly]

I saw several bitto clients allow to set a range of listening ports and of course only one port if th user want it.

Is there a reason it's not implemented in uT settings ? UPnP conflict ? Infinite loop if ports of the range are already used ?

[Ultima]

... Read Firon's post; it's just not a priority. And infinite loop would not be a problem unless the devs were unbelievably careless -- so no, that's hardly a reason.