From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Wed 18 Jun 2003 - 00:22:07 BST
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 12:10:11PM -0400, Cathy Sarisky wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > > Here's something odd: If I start the service that binds port
> > > 80 on the second IP *first*, then I can start the service
> > > that binds port 80 on the first IP, and get both running
> > > correctly. However, if there's already something bound to
> > > port 80 on the first IP, I cannot bind the second IP.
> > hmm, how do you verify ...
> > I mean, which utility do you use to bind to port 80
> > on the second/first interface (alias) ...
> I'm running AOLserver and specifying which IP I want it to bind.
> > and what does change in chcontext --ctx 1 lsof -i -Pn | grep :80
> > if you bind only to the first or second ...
> It shows just the bound IP, not both. So with IPROOT="xx yy zz"
> I cannot start a service listening on xx and then start something
> listening on the same port on yy, although lsof shows yy is not
> in use. (Starting something on yy and then something on xx
> works fine. Order matters. Also, I can start services on yy
> and zz in either order.)
just verified this on 2.4.21-c17a (with tcp_bind utility)
and I can confirm this behaviour ...
it seems that a bind on the first alias, locks out
any further binding on the same server, but does not
bind to more than the first alias ...
haven't checked this for different interfaces yet,
so we'll see tomorrow ...
anyway, seems like something weird is going on ...
> I just assigned this vserver another IP, which I listed first in
> IPROOT="qq xx yy zz". Now I see that I can start AOLserver
> processes listening on xx and yy in any order. I begin to
> suspect there's something peculiar about how the first IP is used?
your are right here, the first seems special!
> Thank you for thinking about this Herbert! :)