From: "Janne Karhunen" Subject: Re: [patch] fix statd -n Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:46:02 -0400 Message-ID: <24c1515f0804181346g5867fa1fqfbbcd13af25027cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <24c1515f0804170938s23fe3ea3pfe77355ed01d8bbf@mail.gmail.com> <20080418173646.GC19038@fieldses.org> <480902CA.1070805@redhat.com> <48090356.9020703@redhat.com> <20080418203225.GD28277@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "Peter Staubach" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]:6175 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751658AbYDRUqD (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:46:03 -0400 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m16so1155665waf.23 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:46:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080418203225.GD28277@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:32 PM, J. Bruce Fields 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? Complicated and unclean in my opinion: one address should suffice. -- // Janne