Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:33:31 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Controlling ports used by natd Message-ID: <20031222182913.M2799@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031212175801.04b066d8@localhost> References: <200312120312.UAA10720@lariat.org> <20031212074519.GA23452@pit.databus.com> <20031212083522.GA24267@pit.databus.com> <20031212181944.GA33245@pit.databus.com> <20031213001913.GA40544@pit.databus.com> <6.0.0.22.2.20031212175801.04b066d8@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Brett Glass wrote: > net.inet.ip.portrange.lowfirst: 1023 > net.inet.ip.portrange.lowlast: 600 > net.inet.ip.portrange.first: 1024 > net.inet.ip.portrange.last: 5000 > net.inet.ip.portrange.hifirst: 49152 > net.inet.ip.portrange.hilast: 65535 > > Why is "lowfirst" greater than "lowlast" above? That's just an implementation issue, nothing major. The port choosing algorithm can handle both the cases where first > last and last > first, and someone put the low ports in that order. > It is also interesting that natd doesn't respect the > "hifirst..hilast" settings here. Shouldn't it look at > these variables and avoid assigning ports that the > machine on which it's running would not use? Or should > there be a "net.inet.alias.portrange.first", etc., so > that one could specify the ranges or lists for everything > in one place? The high range is really a "feature" added for ftpd's sake, if you take a look back through the cvs history. There's no problem with the normal and high ranges overlapping; -current uses 49152-65535 for both. Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031222182913.M2799>