> 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 did not say impossible, concidering that Rick asked how many times he should try, unless N is forever, it could fail.
> > > 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. > as Rick mentioned, the patch is not trivial, and to quote him: "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. To track rpc based traffic, which means random-port to start with, you have to check with rpcinfo anyways. So yes, it's harder than tracking 1 port, but IMHO, less complex than the patch requiered :-), and BTW, mountd is already heavely patched, rpc.statd less, and rpc.lockd is, so far, the only one that is not complaining - guess Rick is a good programer! and I concider myself lucky that we don't use NIS/yellow-pages. danny _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
