From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun May 21 13:52:34 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA28313 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 21 May 1995 13:52:34 -0700 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA28306 for ; Sun, 21 May 1995 13:52:32 -0700 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id NAA12453 for hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 21 May 1995 13:52:30 -0700 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199505212052.NAA12453@ref.tfs.com> Subject: RPC question To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 13:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 684 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk in src/lib/libc/rpc/get_myaddress.c determines it's own address by finding the first "UP" interface. I have a setup where my point-to-point interface lp0 is always up, but there may be nothing in the other end. Since our p-to-p if's do not register a route for their local address, you can only contact the local-end address when there is a machine in the other end. This means that mountd (for instance) will fail to contact the portmapper... Why on earth does the rpc code not use 127.0.0.1 ??? -- Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'