From: Ion Badulescu Subject: Re: mountd through a firewall? Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:35:35 -0500 (EST) Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <3E55101C.2030109@motorola.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from ip64-48-93-2.z93-48-64.customer.algx.net ([64.48.93.2] helo=ns1.limegroup.com) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 18lubs-00047p-00 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:35:48 -0800 To: Robert Rati In-Reply-To: <3E55101C.2030109@motorola.com> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Robert Rati wrote: > I've tried using the -p option, but that causes mountd to try to open > all 4 ports on the same port. For the two UDP ports that not a problem > (although I don't think functionally it'd work too well), but the two > TCP ports obviously will have a problem. When I run rpc.mountd -p 5000, > I get this error: > > mountd: Could not bind name to socket: Address already in use Then you have a broken mountd.. because it doesn't need to listen on multiple ports. You saw my rpcinfo output, even without -p it was only using 2 distinct ports. I just tested the mountd from both nfs-utils 0.3.3 and 1.0.1, both work correctly with respect to -p. Ion -- It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs