From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Nov 15 20:30:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD68737B401 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mleko.xocolatl.com (xocolatl.com [216.240.48.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0365A43E6E for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:30:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from frf@xocolatl.com) Received: from mleko.xocolatl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mleko.xocolatl.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAG4UgWE016675 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:30:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from frf@mleko.xocolatl.com) Received: (from frf@localhost) by mleko.xocolatl.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAG4UgjQ016674 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:30:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from frf) From: Robert Faulds Message-Id: <200211160430.gAG4UgjQ016674@mleko.xocolatl.com> Subject: portmap on only the loopback? To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:30:42 -0800 (PST) X-Oxymoron: Slick GUI X-Alternative-Food-Source: Eat PEZ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99b (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Is there a specific reason why one can not bind portmap to only the loopback interface? Portmap has the -h flag, but it automatically inserts 127.0.0.1 to the list if you specify the -h flag. This prevent one from saying 'portmap -h 127.0.0.1' because it takes the command line arg's, adds 127.0.0.1 to the list, loops "while" there are arguments, and so tries to bind to 127.0.0.1 twice. It errors with 'cannot bind udp: Address already in use', and exits. I "fixed" it on a box, and it's happily portmapping along with no problems that I can see nor any I can imagine but I have been wrong before. Yes there are tcp_wrappers, et al, and yes, it's RPC not LPC, but it there a specific reason for this behavior? Just curious... -- frf@xocolatl.com 39:FF:7C:52:66:9D:B9:A3 EA:67:3C:7F:D1:B6:30:36 A good sysadmin always carries around a few feet of fiber. If he ever gets lost, he simply drops the fiber on the ground, waits ten minutes, then asks the backhoe operator for directions. -- Bill Bradford To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message