This is a discussion on Re: Why krb5kdc and kadmind sets up ports for listening differently ? - Kerberos ; Ken Raeburn wrote: > On Feb 19, 2008, at 02:17, Sachin Punadikar wrote: >> While doing code walkthrough of krb5kdc and kadmind programs, >> I noticed a difference between these two in the way it sets up the >> ports ...
Ken Raeburn wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2008, at 02:17, Sachin Punadikar wrote:
>> While doing code walkthrough of krb5kdc and kadmind programs,
>> I noticed a difference between these two in the way it sets up the
>> ports for listening.
>> krb5kdc uses ioctl calls to get the interfaces list and then on each
>> interface/ip-address its sets up the port for listening.
>> While in case of kadmind it uses wildcard to set up the port for
>> Any specific reason for having different approaches while setting
>> up ports?
> The UDP service offered by the KDC needs to respond from the same IP
> address that the client used to reach it. That's not possible with a
> wildcard-address listener unless your system has support for
> IP_PKTINFO or IPV6_PKTINFO, which is now supported in our code as
> well. The TCP listener does use a wildcard address.
> In kadmind, we're only using TCP, so it can just use the wildcard.
We do the same thing in both NTP and BIND since it's important to reply
using the same IP address as the query was sent to. Anything else is
unexpected by the party making the query. This means creating separate
sockets for each supported IP address/port. You cannot guarantee the
same result using a wildcard unless you are able to capture that
information using IP_PKTINFO or IPV6_PKTINFO, as Ken said. We end up
interating through the interfaces to do it right.
TCP doesn't have the same problem since you need to establish a
connection and then you have the right address in the response packets.