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

Re: packet filtering vs. conserver

Zonker consoleteam@gmail.com
Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:34:23 GMT

  Got it.  I had tunnle vision, and was only thinking of Conserver starting up and connecting to console servers on other networks...


On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:05 AM, <Andras.Horvath@cern.ch> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 06:22:00AM +0200, Bryan Stansell wrote:

> It would make the main port 782, and then start allocating from 783 for
> the rest...up to the number of conserver processes forked off.

Thanks, it seems to work. I've also found the '-m' switch, and the
combination of the two makes for predictable port usage.

Zonker: as I understand it, the client first contacts the server
(master) to determine which host/port to connect to for a given console,
then connects to said host/port (which may be the same host as the
master).  These two connections are in no relation on the TCP/IP level,
and the second one's port is sort of random by default.


users mailing list

ConsoleTeam - Support and training services for Conserver users.