On 2014/04/24 22:28, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On 24 April 2014 22:25, Alexander Hall <alexan...@beard.se> wrote:
> > On 04/24/14 21:53, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2014/04/24 20:30, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 24 April 2014 20:25, Chris Cappuccio <ch...@nmedia.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike Belopuhov [m...@belopuhov.com] wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> more like it's not supported and is not supposed to work.
> >>>>> it's like running nginx and apache at the same time
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> hey, nginx and httpd run concurrently quite fine on
> >>>> different IP addresses, same box :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> i meant using the same port numbers of course.
> >>>
> >>
> >> they can do that fine too! :) just have one hand-off the relevant
> >> requests to the other.
> >>
> >
> > If they bind to separate IP addresses that is obviously not a problem, even
> > for the same port numbers.
> 
> yes. that's precisely what i meant:  you can't bind to the same ipaddr:port
> pair twice.   why do i have to chew it and spit it out for you.  it was clear
> what i meant from the start.

with the httpds there is a good mechanism to listen on a single external
ipaddr:port and look at layer7 information and if a request cannot be
handled by one daemon (e.g. req handled by nginx but it needs mod_perl),
it can be passed across to the other.

if the pfkey issue was solved, it probably wouldn't be *too* messy to
do similar for passing ike to isakmpd and ikev2 to iked (either
internally in iked, or via relayd) if somebody wanted to handle both
protocols on the same external address..

Reply via email to