From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 12 22:11:33 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2CF1065670 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:11:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@dougbarton.us) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1276D8FC0A for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:11:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 20978 invoked by uid 399); 12 Mar 2011 22:11:28 -0000 Received: from router.ka9q.net (HELO doug-optiplex.ka9q.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@75.60.237.91) by mail2.fluidhosting.com with ESMTPAM; 12 Mar 2011 22:11:28 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 75.60.237.91 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4D7BEF8F.9080604@dougbarton.us> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:11:27 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110304 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Braniss References: <2122282816.1268010.1299884622480.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rick Macklem , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: statd/lockd startup failure X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:11:33 -0000 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/