sipwitch-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Sipwitch-devel] Interface Does Not Accept 0.0.0.0


From: David Sugar
Subject: Re: [Sipwitch-devel] Interface Does Not Accept 0.0.0.0
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:33:31 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

That is an interesting question.  Offhand, the bind (interface) address
is passed to eXosip_listen_addr (stack.cpp:#710), so perhaps it is
hanging inside there?

Incidentally, if you use "*", or "::*", or even "::0", it converts to NULL,
and is passed to eXosip_listen_addr as NULL.  So my guess is that it is not
handling any passed or valid interface bind addresses, and not just that one.
The eXosip code is rather convoluted as to how an address string is finally
made into a socket bind call, so I really do hope it is not stuck somewhere in
there :)....

But I will have to investigate this a bit later today or Monday.

This could also be posted as a bug on our new bug tracking system :).

I also spent last week better organizing and standardizing the way
documentation can be done on the wiki...

Patrick R McDonald wrote:

> All,
>
> Four months later I finally have the time to start documenting SIP Witch
> as I planned.  While going through the sipwitch.conf file, I noticed
> some peculiar behavior with the interface tag.  The tag accepts "*" for
> bind to all interfaces.  However when "0.0.0.0" is supplied, sipw hangs
> when attempting to restart.  When I try this with sipw stopped, the
> start script tells me sipw is already started.
>
> I expected "0.0.0.0" to work the same as "*".  Is there a reason it does
> not and what is that reason?  I am running the latest package on Fedora
> Core 13.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | Patrick R. McDonald                       GPG Key: 668AA5DF  |
> | https://www.antagonism.org/         <address@hidden> |
> |                               <address@hidden> |
> |                         <address@hidden> |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> | Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium           |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]