Bind named to 0.0.0.0 (INADDR_ANY)

[Danny Mayer]

Richard Wall wrote:
> 2008/10/1 Adam Tkac <atkac at redhat.com>:
>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 11:28:25AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> In message <cbf1a1340809301028o3ffc5e71ua6a38d7aaefeedca at mail.gmail.com>, "Rich
>>> ard Wall" writes:
>>>> 2008/9/30 Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at isc.org>:
>>>>> In message <cbf1a1340809300721j468531d5sa5da8bedb3fff47e at mail.gmail.com>, "
>>>> Rich
>>>>> ard Wall" writes:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>> Out of interest, how do other services get round this? For example I
>>>> notice that ntpd is listening on IPv4 0.0.0.0:123; doesn't it have the
>>>> same issue?
>>>       Yes and the same solution was used. :-)
>> Well it is quite different if you create per-interface bindings or bind(2)
>> to INADDR_ANY.
>>
>> If you create per-interface bindings and you create new network interface
>> BIND can't see it and use it (not sure if rndc reload/reconfig helps,
>> I haven't test it yet).
> 
> Mark, Adam, Danny,
> 
> Thanks very much for your answers.
> So it sounds like ntpd will in time adopt the same behaviour as bind.

Maybe not. I'm not totally sure it makes sense for ntpd. It's certainly
not on the top of my list of things to worry about.

Danny
> That makes sense and I suppose it's better to be explicit about the
> interfaces that you listen on and send to. I'll work around it.
> 
> -RichardW.