Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:11:03 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: statd/lockd startup failure Message-ID: <990201594.149705.1298225463594.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <8AB6976A-610D-46B1-BAE8-2BBDC70BBAE6@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hi-- > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: > > Well, that was what I was proposing. I could be wrong, but as far as > > I > > know, this is allowed by Sun RPC. The port#s are assigned > > dynamically and > > registered with rpcbind. (I don't necessarily agree with the design, > > but > > this was/is how Sun RPC does it. The philosophy was/is that apps. > > don't know > > what port# is being used and shouldn't care. If sysadmins want to > > use a > > fixed port#, they can use command line options to override the > > default > > dynamic assignment. And, yes, this is one reason that Sun RPC is a > > pita > > w.r.t. firewalls. 1980s design...) > > Trying to force SunRPC and old NFS through fixed ports in order to > pass through a firewall sounds like a lot more work, and weakens the > security of a firewall to such a significant extent that I have to > wonder if it is the right problem to solve. :-) > > Why not setup a VPN via OpenVPN/IPSec/ssh+ppp/etc...? > Well, the discussion was how to fix a problem where the dynamically assigned port# for one of (udp,tcp X ip6,ip4) wasn't available for the others. The test patch I posted allowed each of the four to select different port#s. The daemons already allow specification of a fixed port# (-p option) for anyone who wants a fixed port#. (And yes, I see not being able to run this stuff through a firewall a feature and not a bug.) rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?990201594.149705.1298225463594.JavaMail.root>