We want to make it easier to reason about the exposed ports for substrate nodes (especially collators that run 2 nodes in 1). So from internal discussions at Parity we brainstormed the following table. The logic is to reuse conventions that arose organically while minimizing confusion (eg. it is very hard to differentiate 30334 and 30344 at a glance).
To achieve this we propose to shift port numbers by -1000 for the secondary chain (ie. relay-chain for the collator). Note that most of the times those ports don't need to be exposed.
| Type |
Primary |
Secondary |
| p2p_tcp |
30333 |
29333 |
| p2p_ws |
30444 |
29444 |
| prom |
9615 |
8615 |
| rpc |
9933 |
8933 |
| rpc_ws |
9944 |
8944 |
We want to make it easier to reason about the exposed ports for substrate nodes (especially collators that run 2 nodes in 1). So from internal discussions at Parity we brainstormed the following table. The logic is to reuse conventions that arose organically while minimizing confusion (eg. it is very hard to differentiate 30334 and 30344 at a glance).
To achieve this we propose to shift port numbers by
-1000for the secondary chain (ie. relay-chain for the collator). Note that most of the times those ports don't need to be exposed.