From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Aug  7 12:09:56 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id MAA26044
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 12:09:56 -0700
Received: from pelican.com (pelican.com [134.24.4.62])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id MAA26037
          for <current@FREEBSD.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 12:09:50 -0700
Received: from puffin.pelican.com by pelican.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0sfXYZ-000K2lC; Mon, 7 Aug 95 12:09 WET DST
Received: (from pete@localhost) by puffin.pelican.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA09580; Mon, 7 Aug 1995 12:09:46 -0700
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 12:09:46 -0700
From: Pete Carah <pete@puffin.pelican.com>
Message-Id: <199508071909.MAA09580@puffin.pelican.com>
To: current@FREEBSD.org
Subject: Re: workaround for talk's address problem
Newsgroups: pelican.fbsd-c
In-Reply-To: <199508062229.XAA24522@server.netcraft.co.uk>
Sender: current-owner@FREEBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In article <199508062229.XAA24522@server.netcraft.co.uk> you write:
>In reply to J Wunsch who said
>> The correct solution would be asking the routing socket to see which
>> interface address must be used to get in contact with the remote peer.
>> Unfortunately, the interface to the routing socket is somewhat ugly to
>> use and it requires root privileges.  Hence i'm suggesting the
>> following workaround.  It introduces an option `-a' followed by a
>> (dotted-quad) address to use for the negotiation.  This address will
>> be checked against the address list as returned from gethostbyname()
>> to avoid abusing foreign addresses.

>I want to add an option like this to everything. I'm running a multi-homed
>host that has *lots* (or will have) of ip addresses and I also
>need to have, for instance, a sendmail connected to each address to handle
>services for that particular domain.
THIS *SHOULD* be possible to use (if possible) with no mods to the
client/server program source.  This would eliminate the problem of
needing listens on all possible interfaces like xntpd now does.

>I'm gradually building such an environment but if peopl have any ideas
>about this I'd be interested. As I mentioned before, the approach I'm
>currently taking is to have all the servers bind to the address
>returned by gethostbyname where the hostname is returned from a
>modified gethostname() that looks it up in /etc/hostname. This works
>for me because each of my virtual domains live in their own chrooted 
>environment. I'm planning to add options to bind to a command line
>specified address though so the ability is more general.
Boy is that not general.  We need to think about incoming connections
too (like the kadmind fix last week; will that work for xntpd too,
and is it possible to move the fix(es) to the library and/or kernel so
we don't need to go around modifying all possible clients *and* daemons?
As far as I know this is only a UDP problem.

-- Pete