Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:16:17 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Cc: mike@jellydonut.org, george+freebsd@m5p.com, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Subject: Re: statd/lockd startup failure Message-ID: <931979672.138955.1298150177898.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <4D5F0A3B.1060305@dougbarton.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 02/18/2011 10:08, Rick Macklem wrote: > > The attached patches changes the behaviour so that it tries to > > get an unused port for each of the 4 cases. > > Am I correct in assuming that what you're proposing is to > (potentially) > have different ports for all 4 combinations? I would suggest that this > is not the right way to solve the problem. If I misunderstand, I > apologize. > Well, that was what I was proposing. I could be wrong, but as far as I know, this is allowed by Sun RPC. The port#s are assigned dynamically and registered with rpcbind. (I don't necessarily agree with the design, but this was/is how Sun RPC does it. The philosophy was/is that apps. don't know what port# is being used and shouldn't care. If sysadmins want to use a fixed port#, they can use command line options to override the default dynamic assignment. And, yes, this is one reason that Sun RPC is a pita w.r.t. firewalls. 1980s design...) I don't know an easy way to get a non-assugned port# that is available for all 4 combinations of udp,tcp X ip4,ip6. If others know how to get a port# that is available for all 4 cases, I could implement that. rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?931979672.138955.1298150177898.JavaMail.root>