bindaddress & port -> listen ?

Jeffrey M. Vinocur jeff at litech.org
Thu Aug 1 13:22:42 UTC 2002


On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Matus \fantomas\ Uhlar wrote:

> -> Hmm.  It's hard to imagine when you would want INN to listen on multiple
> -> ports, really.  
> 
> well, let's start with ipv4 and ipv6. 

Err, have you examined the IPv6 modifications in CURRENT?  There's 
bindaddress6: distinct from bindaddress: for this purpose.


> -> [nnrpd] But I can't see as 
> -> it's a big problem just to have several nnrpd's listening (if you use 
> -> daemon mode; if not just configure inetd as appropriate), right?
> 
> Well, i don't think it's a problem, but i find it superflous. And also, i
> got an idea about using shared memory for accessing active, overview etc,
> which would probably spare cpu/time/memory/io, which would be much easier
> with one nnrpd and its children. 

I'm not convinced :-)


-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org



More information about the inn-workers mailing list