On 03/12/2011 14:56, Rick Macklem wrote:
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 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.
I suppose the patch could be changed to switch to "allow any port#"
after N failed attempts at getting the same one. (I'll admit I have
troiuble seeing why getting the same port# would fail "forever" unless
all ports are in use and, if that's the case, you're snookered.)
Right. :) I'm not suggesting that you do that, btw. But I'm not opposed
to the idea if it proves to be necessary (which I seriously doubt).
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.
Fair enough, and I'm usually the first to oppose needless complexity,
but I think in this case it's worth it.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
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"
