On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:22:43AM -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Jan 6, 2006, at 4:40 AM, James Long wrote:
>
> >>Yeah, I noticed that little tiny "UDP requests" note in the -h docs
> >>too. There's no reason to bind to all tcp addresses, and it is
> >>causing me heartburn for getting the ser
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Ceri Davies wrote:
CD> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/usr.sbin/rpcbind# rpcinfo -p
CD> > rpcinfo: can't contact portmapper: RPC: Port mapper failure - RPC: Success
CD>
CD> That's more annoying. It's not INET6 though; it's because the local
CD> transport is also tpi_cots_ord, so
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 05:35:28PM +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Ceri Davies wrote:
>
> CD> > VK> I had rpcbind running with on two interfaces like this:
> CD> > VK>
> CD> > VK> rpcbind -h 192.168.100.200 -h 10.0.0.9
> CD> > VK>
> CD> > VK> Now, I changed rpcbind_flags in
On Jan 6, 2006, at 4:40 AM, James Long wrote:
Yeah, I noticed that little tiny "UDP requests" note in the -h docs
too. There's no reason to bind to all tcp addresses, and it is
causing me heartburn for getting the server certified...
Good grief, why not just firewall off the undesired UDP po
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Ceri Davies wrote:
CD> > VK> I had rpcbind running with on two interfaces like this:
CD> > VK>
CD> > VK> rpcbind -h 192.168.100.200 -h 10.0.0.9
CD> > VK>
CD> > VK> Now, I changed rpcbind_flags in /etc/rc.conf to just have the first
address,
CD> > VK> and I restarted rpcbind.
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:46:06PM +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> VK> I had rpcbind running with on two interfaces like this:
> VK>
> VK> rpcbind -h 192.168.100.200 -h 10.0.0.9
> VK>
> VK> Now, I changed rpcbind_flags in /etc/rc.conf to just have the
> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:31:33 -0500
> From: Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: rpcbind lingering on IP no longer specified on command
> line
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=U
On Jan 5, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Gavin Atkinson wrote:
Can anyone explain why rpcbind will still bind to all tcp interfaces?
Although I believe this is a bug, it is actually working as
documented:
from rpcbind(8):
-h bindip
Specify specific IP addresses to bind to for UDP
r
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 15:44 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > What does 'sockstat | grep rpcbind' tell you?
>
> # sockstat | grep rpcbind
> root rpcbind11382 5 stream /var/run/rpcbind.sock
> root rpcbind11382 6 dgram -> /var/run/lo
On Jan 4, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
What does 'sockstat | grep rpcbind' tell you?
# sockstat | grep rpcbind
root rpcbind11382 5 stream /var/run/rpcbind.sock
root rpcbind11382 6 dgram -> /var/run/logpriv
root rpcbind11382 7 udp4 127.0.0.1:111 *:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Doug Barton wrote:
DB> > rpcbind -h 192.168.100.200 -h 10.0.0.9
DB> >
DB> > Now, I changed rpcbind_flags in /etc/rc.conf to just have the first
DB> > address, and I restarted rpcbind. the process list from ps shows it is
DB> > running like this:
DB> >
DB> > rpcbind -h 192.16
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Vivek Khera wrote:
VK> I had rpcbind running with on two interfaces like this:
VK>
VK> rpcbind -h 192.168.100.200 -h 10.0.0.9
VK>
VK> Now, I changed rpcbind_flags in /etc/rc.conf to just have the first address,
VK> and I restarted rpcbind. the process list from ps shows it i
FWIW, this question could probably have been asked on freebsd-questions@
since it doesn't really pertain specifically to an issue about a stable
branch, but that's not the end of the world.
Vivek Khera wrote:
I had rpcbind running with on two interfaces like this:
rpcbind -h 192.168.100.200 -
I had rpcbind running with on two interfaces like this:
rpcbind -h 192.168.100.200 -h 10.0.0.9
Now, I changed rpcbind_flags in /etc/rc.conf to just have the first
address, and I restarted rpcbind. the process list from ps shows it
is running like this:
rpcbind -h 192.168.100.200
Yet nmap
14 matches
Mail list logo
