> Correct me if I'm wrong but in case of IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT doesn't the
unique 4-tuple (sourceip+sourceport+destip+destport) limit still remain?
Yes, it still remains.
> As you only defer/delegate to kernel to assign the ephemeral port in
connect() rather than at the bind() time (when the de
> Unfortunately, the article says nothing about 65K+ connections _per_single_
> local address.
> Using of IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT for Linux was mentioned in the comment
> and there's nothing about FreeBSD.
Correct me if I'm wrong but in case of IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT doesn't the
unique 4-tuple (
Unfortunately, the article says nothing about 65K+ connections _per_single_
local address.
Using of IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT for Linux was mentioned in the comment and
there's nothing about FreeBSD.
Posted at Nginx Forum:
https://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,279368,279394#msg-279394
___
This may well help:
https://www.nginx.com/blog/overcoming-ephemeral-port-exhaustion-nginx-plus/
On 10/04/2018 13:54, Salikhov Dinislam wrote:
Hello,
On Linux, NINGX can have more than 65K connections to backends per one local
address of a proxy (set via proxy_bind), as Linux support
IP_BIND_ADD
Hello,
On Linux, NINGX can have more than 65K connections to backends per one local
address of a proxy (set via proxy_bind), as Linux support
IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT socket option.
I wonder if it is possible to have more than 65K proxy connections on
FreeBSD? And if yes, does NGINX support it?
T
