Richard Wall wrote: > 2008/10/1 Adam Tkac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 11:28:25AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich >>> ard Wall" writes: >>>> 2008/9/30 Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, " >>>> Rich >>>>> ard Wall" writes: > > <snip> > >>>> Out of interest, how do other services get round this? For example I >>>> notice that ntpd is listening on IPv4 0.0.0.0:123; doesn't it have the >>>> same issue? >>> Yes and the same solution was used. :-) >> Well it is quite different if you create per-interface bindings or bind(2) >> to INADDR_ANY. >> >> If you create per-interface bindings and you create new network interface >> BIND can't see it and use it (not sure if rndc reload/reconfig helps, >> I haven't test it yet). > > Mark, Adam, Danny, > > Thanks very much for your answers. > So it sounds like ntpd will in time adopt the same behaviour as bind.
Maybe not. I'm not totally sure it makes sense for ntpd. It's certainly not on the top of my list of things to worry about. Danny > That makes sense and I suppose it's better to be explicit about the > interfaces that you listen on and send to. I'll work around it. > > -RichardW.
