I can see the usefulness of that... If I were going to that level I guess I'd just use a firewall to control access to SSH and also to block any unneeded ports.
Hopefully we'll get at that point in version 5.0. Again, you're not the first to ask for it, but usually somebody wants to stick one leg of the server on the internet to avoid NAT... Mike On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Abdul Mayat <[email protected]>wrote: > > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="utf-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Organization: SipXecs Forum > In-Reply-To: <[email protected] > > > X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8 <53807> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > > > Hi Michael, > > Its not a requirement driven by throughput or resiliency... > > Its a common setup in enterprise environments for servers to > be connected to a private network for management and admin > (backups, updates, monitoring etc) and then have servers > connected to a separate public or private network for > applications. > > Maybe one of the redhat guy's can confirm this? > > Seems like we should have a config setting in the > application to allow the admin to explicitly set the IP > address of the box...which in fact we do with the initial > setup script, so still not sure why the application would > bind to the wrong address... > > If there is enough interest, maybe I'll give this a try and > report back what breaks...! > > Abdul > > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ > -- There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't. [email protected] blog: http://www.sipxecs.info call: sip:[email protected] <sip%[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
