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 13:46:29 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

In fact, there are probably two issues.  If we do go past eXosip_listen_addr
but it gives an error, we do a shell::FAIL exit, and I do not think we have an
exit handler (atexit()) to remove the control fifo.  Since the control fifo
exists (/var/run/sipwitch/control), it assumes when started again that
another instance must be running...

David Sugar wrote:

> 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]