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.
Meanwhile, I don't think I'm the only person who has ever had trouble
trying to track down network traffic from "random" ports that would
prefer that doing so not be made harder by having the same service on
the same host using 4 different ports.
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"
