Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:56:36 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: statd/lockd startup failure Message-ID: <1745116963.1290533.1299970596486.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <4D7BEF8F.9080604@dougbarton.us>
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. > I suppose the patch could be changed to switch to "allow any port#" after N failed attempts at getting the same one. (I'll admit I have troiuble seeing why getting the same port# would fail "forever" unless all ports are in use and, if that's the case, you're snookered.) My only concern with the "same port# patch" is that it is more complex and, therefore, somewhat riskier w.r.t. my having gotten it wrong. > 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. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1745116963.1290533.1299970596486.JavaMail.root>