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 <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
