Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 19:29:07 +1000 From: David Nugent <davidn@unique.usn.blaze.net.au> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: bind and aliases Message-ID: <199706160929.TAA08450@unique.usn.blaze.net.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm attempting to set up a server and seem to have a problem.
I can't get the (UDP based) server running when binding to a
specific address, but it does work just fine when binding to
any.
The executable is a BSD binary (actually, this is Id's
unixded, the dedicated quake server). It has a command line
option to bind to a specific address so that you can run
multiple servers on the same machine using the default udp
port. ktrace shows the following:
4703 unixded CALL socket(0x2,0x2,0x11)
Aka, socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 16)
[hmm, no protocol 16 defined in /etc/protocols...]
4703 unixded RET socket 6
4703 unixded CALL ioctl(0x6,FIONBIO,0xefbfd73c)
4703 unixded RET ioctl 0
4703 unixded CALL write(0x1,0x961000,0x31)
4703 unixded GIO fd 1 wrote 49 bytes
"Binding to IP Interface Address of 203.17.53.241
"
4703 unixded RET write 49/0x31
Call to bind follows:-
4703 unixded CALL bind(0x6,0xefbfd740,0x10)
4703 unixded RET bind -1 errno 49 Can't assign requested address
4703 unixded CALL close(0x6)
4703 unixded RET close 0
4703 unixded CALL write(0x2,0xefbfd080,0x28)
4703 unixded GIO fd 2 wrote 40 bytes
"UDP_Init: Unable to open control socket
"
But bind(2) failes with errno 49, which suggests that there's no
interface with this address. However, even the default ip address
on the ed0 interface won't work here. This is its ifconfig:
ed0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 203.17.53.17 netmask 0xfffffff0 broadcast 203.17.53.31
inet 203.17.53.241 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 203.17.53.241
inet 203.17.53.242 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 203.17.53.242
inet 203.17.53.243 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 203.17.53.243
ether 00:00:c0:d5:a5:10
Anyone have any ideas? I first tried this under -current as of
May 14th or thereabouts, but just updated to yesterday's -current
and the result is the same. What's worse is that I know this works
ok for tcp sockets since I've recently been using bind(2) on
specific addresses in code I'm working on.
Regards,
David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706160929.TAA08450>