bindaddress & port -> listen ?

Matus "fantomas" Uhlar uhlar at
Thu Aug 1 15:48:29 UTC 2002

-> > -> 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.

well, but it even makes inn listen on multiple ports, doesn't it?
using 'listen address' probably multiple times could look imho more nice.
Even if inn would be capable to do both ipv4 and ipv6 resolving if 'address'
would be a host name, not an 

-> > -> [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 :-)

one nnrpd will be much easier maintained then two (four?) nnrpds
ipv4/ipv4+ssl/ipv6/ipv6+ssl ... :)

Well, what I propose here is just my idea and i think this would be the most
powerful way... you don't need to accept it of course...
 Matus "fantomas" Uhlar, uhlar at ;
 Warning: I don't wish to receive spam to this address.
 Varovanie: Nezelam si na tuto adresu dostavat akukolvek reklamnu postu.
 Christian Science Programming: "Let God Debug It!".

More information about the inn-workers mailing list