Follow-up Comment #4, bug #14106 (project freeciv):
> > In the end, it appears that --Bind-meta= is a
> > more sensible thing to do in the case of a multihomed host
> Why is that? It seems to me that this only forces user to enter same IP
> twice; once for --bind and second time for --Bind-meta.
Not at all, as --bind= already implies --Bind-meta= on the same address
with my patch:
+ if ((b_a = srvarg.meta_bind_addr != 0
+ ? srvarg.meta_bind_addr
+ : srvarg.bind_addr) != 0) {
> Actually, if they differ, doesn't client get wrong IP from metaserver (the
> one server used to connect metaserver, and not the one server is listening
> client connections from)?
This option allows for a multi-homed host to use a specific IPv4 address
when reporting to the metaserver, while still accepting connections on
any of its addresses.
In my case, e. g., the server has a NATed private (RFC 1918) IPv4
address from a cheaper ISP, which is the default route, and a real IPv4
address from another ISP (not to talk about of yet another RFC 1918
address for LAN.) While I wish for civserver to accept connections on
any of these addresses, I need a specific IPv4 to be reported to the
metaserver. Unless --Bind-meta= is used, the connection will be done
using the NATed address, and the address of the NAT will be in the
Metaserver's list.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?14106>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
