On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:46:00AM -0400, Janne Karhunen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:02 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sorry, not very clear. Perhaps statd should bind to the loopback
> > > > > interface in addition to any other interfaces if it doesn't bind
> > > > > to INADDR_ANY.
> > > >
> > > > Right, that's what would make the most sense to me. Janne, is there any
> > > > reason that wouldn't solve your problem?
> > >
> > > I didn't get the idea. So the idea is to use multiple sockets,
> > > one bound to LOOPBACK and one to external interface?
> >
> > I suppose so. One socket would be for communication for the local
> > kernel nfsd, one for communication with statd peers.
>
> So shall we add yet another port option for statd or talk
> to portmap about the port assignment? It's ugly any way
> you put it.
I'm confused--why is either needed?
--b.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:59 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So shall we add yet another port option for statd or talk
> > to portmap about the port assignment? It's ugly any way
> > you put it.
>
> I'm confused--why is either needed?
Right, it wasn't. Let me experiment with the patch
first if it does anything sane..
--
// Janne