Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:11:27 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> To: Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> Cc: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: statd/lockd startup failure Message-ID: <4D7BEF8F.9080604@dougbarton.us> In-Reply-To: <E1PyLwg-000PaY-Fu@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il> References: <2122282816.1268010.1299884622480.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> <E1PyLwg-000PaY-Fu@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/12/2011 02:21, Daniel Braniss wrote: > The problem with trying to get the same port for all tcp/udp/inet/inet6 > though might succeed most of the time, will fail sometimes, then what? Can you please describe the scenario when it's completely impossible to find a port that's open on all 4 families? > I saw Doug's commnent, and also the:), it's not as simple as tracking port > 80 or 25, needs some efford, but it's deterministic/programable, and worst case > you can still use the -p option (which again will fail sometimes:-). Given that Rick has already written the patch, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to put it in as the first choice, perhaps with a fallback to picking any available port if there isn't one available for all 4 families. Meanwhile, I don't think I'm the only person who has ever had trouble trying to track down network traffic from "random" ports that would prefer that doing so not be made harder by having the same service on the same host using 4 different ports. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D7BEF8F.9080604>