On 13 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Brian Feldman <gr...@unixhelp.org> writes:
> > Another problem that came up with this: I originally started at port 1024.
> > I monopolized 30000 ports (almost all consecutive, of course). When I try to
> > connect() a TCP socket as non-root, it fails with EAGAIN (I only tracked it
> > far enough down as in_pcbbind().) It seems that eventually it gives up
> > trying
> > to find a port... :-/
>
> What kind of connects are you doing? If you try to connect all your
> sockets to the same destination,port tuple you'll quickly run out of
> source ports, since there are only a little less than 4,000 ports
> available:
>
> d...@des ~% sysctl -A | grep portrange
> net.inet.ip.portrange.lowfirst: 1023
> net.inet.ip.portrange.lowlast: 600
> net.inet.ip.portrange.first: 1024
> net.inet.ip.portrange.last: 5000
> net.inet.ip.portrange.hifirst: 49152
> net.inet.ip.portrange.hilast: 65535
>
> connect() normally uses the 1024-5000 range. Try the following:
>
> # sysctl -w net.inet.ip.portrange.last=40000
>
> and see if it solves the EAGAIN problem.
Actually, this is the perfect explanation. I think that this should go in
the FAQ. Why in the world are we limiting the ports we can use other than
from 1-1023?
>
> DES
> --
> Dag-Erling Smorgrav - d...@flood.ping.uio.no
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>
Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
gr...@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) |
http://www.freebsd.org _ |___/___/___/
"<green_> THAT'S WRONG WRONG WRONG!"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
