On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 09:45:55AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 11:40:40PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > from the discussion I understand nobody rejects the functionality.
> >
> > To ease the review here again the diff (with incorporated feedback from
> > an
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 11:40:40PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> from the discussion I understand nobody rejects the functionality.
>
> To ease the review here again the diff (with incorporated feedback from
> anton@ (redundant parens)).
>
> Any comments or OKs?
Not sure about this, sin
Hi,
from the discussion I understand nobody rejects the functionality.
To ease the review here again the diff (with incorporated feedback from
anton@ (redundant parens)).
Any comments or OKs?
Remi
cvs diff: Diffing .
Index: bgpd.c
==
Stuart Henderson(s...@spacehopper.org) on 2018.11.11 21:55:19 +:
> On 2018/11/11 22:45, Job Snijders wrote:
> > Shouldnt we already bomb out at the following?
> >
> > cannot bind to 0.0.0.0:179: Address already in use
> > cannot bind to [::]:179: Address already in use
> >
> > In any regard,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 08:12:37AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 04:40:54PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Makes sense to me, I suppose.
> >
> > Isn't another approach to swap the opening of the sockets?
> >
> > Or why does failure to control :179 sockets not stop startup
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 04:40:54PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Makes sense to me, I suppose.
>
> Isn't another approach to swap the opening of the sockets?
>
> Or why does failure to control :179 sockets not stop startup?
Because you can change them during reload and if they are incorrect for
Makes sense to me, I suppose.
Isn't another approach to swap the opening of the sockets?
Or why does failure to control :179 sockets not stop startup?
> I heard from two devs that started a 2nd bgpd by accident (forgot -n for
> a config check) which then caused downtime.
>
> Below diff adds a c
On 2018/11/11 22:45, Job Snijders wrote:
> Shouldnt we already bomb out at the following?
>
> cannot bind to 0.0.0.0:179: Address already in use
> cannot bind to [::]:179: Address already in use
>
> In any regard, I agree with the functionality proposed. No strong opinion
> on the diff itself.
S
Shouldnt we already bomb out at the following?
cannot bind to 0.0.0.0:179: Address already in use
cannot bind to [::]:179: Address already in use
In any regard, I agree with the functionality proposed. No strong opinion
on the diff itself.
Kind regards,
Job
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 22:35 Remi L
Hi,
I heard from two devs that started a 2nd bgpd by accident (forgot -n for
a config check) which then caused downtime.
Below diff adds a check to bgpd similar to the one we have now in ospfd and
ospf6d: if another process is listening on the control socket bgpd exits.
The situation is a bit di
10 matches
Mail list logo