Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:21:30 +0100 From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> To: Jan Knepper <jan@digitaldaemon.com>, "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: binding by different process on the same port Message-ID: <357e648a-d136-c251-bcdd-35eae31527d5@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <4CD224CB-1114-4361-B46D-5A3E7455DA0B@digitaldaemon.com> References: <896832c9-7d63-cd9a-b0e9-7ad32e90568a@digiware.nl> <4CD224CB-1114-4361-B46D-5A3E7455DA0B@digitaldaemon.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18-12-2016 16:50, Jan Knepper wrote:
> I would guess
>
>> wjw ceph-osd-0 93336 43 tcp4 127.0.0.1:6804 *:*
>
> was started first. Claiming a specific port on a specific IP address...
Well I've been trying to recreate the situation with a fake server
programs, one binds on localhost:port and the other on 0.0.0.0:port. And
the order does not matter, but I have not (yet) been able to actually
register on a port for the second time.
So it needs a bit more than just:
socket, bind, listen, accept
--WjW
> Jan
>
>
>
> ManiaC++
> Jan Knepper
>
> On Dec 17, 2016, at 21:20, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl
> <mailto:wjw@digiware.nl>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I thought that the following was not (easily) possible?
>> wjw ceph-osd-1 93349 14 tcp4 *:6804 *:*
>> wjw ceph-osd-0 93336 43 tcp4 127.0.0.1:6804 *:*
>>
>> Or is it due to:
>> - using SO_REUSEADDR
>> - the fact that one address is more specific than the other and as
>> such they are considered different?
>>
>> --WjW
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
>> mailing list
>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>> "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org
>> <mailto:freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org>"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?357e648a-d136-c251-bcdd-35eae31527d5>