On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:04:09PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Oh, sorry, I forgot to respond to this part.
> Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > > Of course if we were writing all our services according to best > > practices, we wouldn't have to worry about this, as the service would > > just handle this gracefully (or maybe hand the complexity off to the > > init system for socket-based activation - but then what does init do > > with a request for a socket address that's not available? > This is what IP_FREEBIND is for, which is why it needs to be supported by > the socket activation configuration. It's been considered best practice > for some time for IPv6 services binding to particular configured IP > addresses to use IP_FREEBIND because IPv6 network setup can take an > unpredictable amount of time. Ah, thanks for the pointer. I saw your previous mention of IP_FREEBIND but hadn't looked it up yet - that certainly does sound like an important feature to take advantage of in socket activation. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
