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. 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. -- Richard Wall Support Engineer ApplianSys Ltd http://www.appliansys.com (t) +44 (0)24 7643 0094 (f) +44 (0)87 0762 7063 (e) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
